Hillary Sucks.

[Schnitzer318is]

I don't understand how people are undecided at this point.

Really?

With the amount of media attention, and how badly the candidates are representing themselves, I'm surprised... that your surprised. Plus, many are still doing their research, etc. This isn't a light decision, only happens every 4 years after all.

The only thing I don't understand is how people would take no interest at all.

[marshallnoise]

I don't understand how people are undecided at this point.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Schnitzer318is]

Johnson and Stein have no chance and are votes for Hillary

The Hillary supporters say the same thing but that they are votes for Trump. So at least you guys are on the same page on something. :D

These candidates suck. Our political system sucks. Vote for the candidate you "like" the most... no vote is a wasted vote. I think my vote has drifted towards Stein, we'll see, still have a month to mull the "options."

[gwb72tii]

getting back on point
Hillary is clearly not fit to be President due to her public record. She is qualified, but not fit.
Trump may be unqualified, but he is fit.
So here we are.
The only choice and chance for changing all that's wrong in DC is Trump.
Clinton is more of the same, more of what got us here. If you like politics in America, if you like how our country has been run for decades, vote for Hillary
Johnson and Stein have no chance and are votes for Hillary. I'm not sure you can be "principled" when your vote is for the status quo.
Trump is not perfect by a long shot. Others perhaps more perfect chose not to run or were defeated in primaries.
We will never have a perfect candidate.

Vote Trump

[Schnitzer318is]

this is not a left/right issue, it's basic economics
your approach is being tried in the real world, Greece, and it is NOT working, thank you, unless your solution is a 7 year depression
you might get away with decreased taxes and spending, but increasing taxes will throw you into an economic downward spiral

but agreed that everyone will feel the pinch. simply reducing spending would help but good luck with that. Clinton will spend like obama like bush. trump at least talks the talk

I agree it shouldn't be a left/right issue. The members of those parties turn it into a left/right issue. It IS an economic issue.

There WILL be a depression (that's how it goes when you get yourself into a 20trillion dollar whole)... but not on the scale of a 7 year depression. You can hardly use Greece as a market study for what would happen with moderate tax increase and moderate spending decrease in the US. Apples v Oranges.

Agreed Clinton will spend like Obama, who spent like Bush. Trump will do the same though as he will also bow to his corporate overlords just like the current administration and the legislative branches of gov't. Trump is mainly running so he can get the biggest boner he's ever had and to take the mantle from Obama for roasting him at the White House Correspondence Dinner in 2012 (2013?).

Johnson seemed interesting but the more he opens his mouth the dumber he seems. A shame. Seems everyone likes to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory these days.

[BraveUlysses]

trump's tax plans are anything but deficit and debt increasing.

it appears you're only interested in whoever gives lip service to being fiscally conservative but you don't even think it through enough to realize his proposals aren't realistic or involve reducing the debt or deficit.

[gwb72tii]

Disagree on all counts. But again, this doesn't surprise me. Most people are firmly right, or firmly left. Cutting spending does NOT only reap benefits... just ask those who lose jobs, benefits, etc. My position is that with a 20 trillion dollar national debt, everyone needs to feel the pinch to right the ship. Increase taxes and decrease spending. I would have to get much more in depth to show why we need both, but it would not be likely that I'd be agreed with (or sway opinion) by anyone so...
A

this is not a left/right issue, it's basic economics
your approach is being tried in the real world, Greece, and it is NOT working, thank you, unless your solution is a 7 year depression
you might get away with decreased taxes and spending, but increasing taxes will throw you into an economic downward spiral

but agreed that everyone will feel the pinch. simply reducing spending would help but good luck with that. Clinton will spend like obama like bush. trump at least talks the talk

[Schnitzer318is]

Well, the thing is, the bottom line can be increased in two ways: more revenue or less spending. If you reduce spending, more cash is freed up without having to burden anyone. So really, I don't think that both have to happen. Personal income is the driver of the current economy so tinkering with that is dangerous while reducing spending reaps only benefits.

Disagree on all counts. But again, this doesn't surprise me. Most people are firmly right, or firmly left. Cutting spending does NOT only reap benefits... just ask those who lose jobs, benefits, etc. My position is that with a 20 trillion dollar national debt, everyone needs to feel the pinch to right the ship. Increase taxes and decrease spending. I would have to get much more in depth to show why we need both, but it would not be likely that I'd be agreed with (or sway opinion) by anyone so...

I think having a discussion about it is one thing, but calling DJT or HRC a crook because they both carried forward losses on their tax returns, LEGALLY, is immoral. Is it immoral to purchase a foreclosure because someone lost their home, after all, someone lost their home and that is tragic? Where the hell does this subjective thinking end?

Apples to oranges comparison. And we disagree fundamentally on this issue. No biggie, that's life.

I disagree about everyone needing to move to the center regarding many things. I have zero problems with anyone who is not a felon to own a tank, RPG, M281 or whatever. This places trust in the law and the enforcement of the law.

Again NBD, we disagree on this issue. Nothing to be said as neither of us are likely to change our position.

Also, the 1st Amendment should not be infringed either, but Twitter and Facebook censor people all the time. Is that a legal issue? I don't know. But we don't have a choice about whether we can be offended or not. We will get offended and that's life.

Agreed 1st amendment is crucial. However Twitter and Facebook are companies. They have the right to decide what content is available on their sites. If you want to voice freedom of speech... create your own web page and rant away. Or go the old fashioned route and grab a posterboard and some markers.

So again... HRC, DJT, most of Congress... they are all crooks, and should be thrown out on their asses. They just make it legal for themselves to be crooks. If you think this is okay, then that's your American right. I think otherwise, but through some method that is beyond me, the establishment (both right and left parties play the same game) has convinced people this system works. There should be no such thing as a career politician, a lobbyist, or Citizens United.

[marshallnoise]

Totally agree 100%. Been saying this for awhile now, but unfortunately people have their heads so far up their own asses... they think they have to be 100% right wing, or 100% left wing. We need more income (taxes) and less expenses (lots of examples, entitlements, defense spending, etc). Simple math.

Well, the thing is, the bottom line can be increased in two ways: more revenue or less spending. If you reduce spending, more cash is freed up without having to burden anyone. So really, I don't think that both have to happen. Personal income is the driver of the current economy so tinkering with that is dangerous while reducing spending reaps only benefits.

There is no discussion as to the legality there is definitely still room for discussion as to morality. As evidenced by your bolded section. In a true democracy (or republic) laws are supposed to evolve as opinions change. Certain ones were written in fairly solid concrete (such as the right to bear arms), but the discussion should always be tolerated, even if not agreed with. As a country (everyone, rich, poor, and in between) we are devolving into a nation of poop slingers who are finding it impossible to see things from another person's point of view.

PS: I realize your were using gun control as an example only, but I do own firearms and would certainly not support disarming the citizenry. I do however agree we don't need private citizens with certain types of weaponry. Again, illustrating the need for everyone to move more towards the center, whether you are on the right or the left.

I think having a discussion about it is one thing, but calling DJT or HRC a crook because they both carried forward losses on their tax returns, LEGALLY, is immoral. Is it immoral to purchase a foreclosure because someone lost their home, after all, someone lost their home and that is tragic? Where the hell does this subjective thinking end?

I disagree about everyone needing to move to the center regarding many things. I have zero problems with anyone who is not a felon to own a tank, RPG, M281 or whatever. This places trust in the law and the enforcement of the law.

Also, the 1st Amendment should not be infringed either, but Twitter and Facebook censor people all the time. Is that a legal issue? I don't know. But we don't have a choice about whether we can be offended or not. We will get offended and that's life.

[Schnitzer318is]

I think the fundamental argument about taxes revolves around this: Either you believe we need more tax revenue or you believe that the government's appetite is too large. From either of these two positions you will arrive at your conclusions as to how to solve the debt problem. The truth is, a little bit of both would help. But I firmly fall within the camp of the government needs to get smaller.

Totally agree 100%. Been saying this for awhile now, but unfortunately people have their heads so far up their own asses... they think they have to be 100% right wing, or 100% left wing. We need more income (taxes) and less expenses (lots of examples, entitlements, defense spending, etc). Simple math.

Schnitzer318is, people believe it is immoral to own a firearm and that no one should have them, yet the law says otherwise. Moreover, it specifically says there is no discussion about the morality of them; the issue is decided and there is nothing short of another constitutional amendment that can take away the right to bear arms. This is how laws work. People's opinions are irrelevant because the law says otherwise. If enough opinions change, then the laws can be changed.

There is no discussion as to the legality there is definitely still room for discussion as to morality. As evidenced by your bolded section. In a true democracy (or republic) laws are supposed to evolve as opinions change. Certain ones were written in fairly solid concrete (such as the right to bear arms), but the discussion should always be tolerated, even if not agreed with. As a country (everyone, rich, poor, and in between) we are devolving into a nation of poop slingers who are finding it impossible to see things from another person's point of view.

PS: I realize your were using gun control as an example only, but I do own firearms and would certainly not support disarming the citizenry. I do however agree we don't need private citizens with certain types of weaponry. Again, illustrating the need for everyone to move more towards the center, whether you are on the right or the left.

[marshallnoise]

I think the fundamental argument about taxes revolves around this: Either you believe we need more tax revenue or you believe that the government's appetite is too large. From either of these two positions you will arrive at your conclusions as to how to solve the debt problem. The truth is, a little bit of both would help. But I firmly fall within the camp of the government needs to get smaller.

Schnitzer318is, people believe it is immoral to own a firearm and that no one should have them, yet the law says otherwise. Moreover, it specifically says there is no discussion about the morality of them; the issue is decided and there is nothing short of another constitutional amendment that can take away the right to bear arms. This is how laws work. People's opinions are irrelevant because the law says otherwise. If enough opinions change, then the laws can be changed.

[Schnitzer318is]

2 things

1. by your above post you presume that sending your hard earned wages to the federal government is the best use of your time, effort and hours worked. This is the worst choice. take your deductions like trump does and do something good with the money

2. the "wealthy" get to write off more because they make more money. This is not immoral or unethical, it is current tax law. there is nothing moral or "more" ethical about sending your money to the federal government.
In fact you could argue it is immoral as you can do more good with your tax savings by benefiting a local charity or starting a business and hiring someone.

Point one, if you are saying the national debt is too large. You need to pay into the system in order to reduce that national debt. Arguing that you are not going to pay into it because the feds might not use it (they most likely won't) towards the debt just makes you part of the problem. Especially if you are running for president. It cuts the legs out from under your platform, whether you agree it's the best use of money/time or not.

Point two we just disagree on fundamentally. Something can be legal, yet still immoral/unethical. That's a fact. But obviously everyone won't hold the same opinion as to whether it is, or isn't... that's the great thing about the country, we have different beliefs but can coexist. Tax codes need to be changed to a tiered flat tax so that deductions are a thing of the past (IMO, again some would disagree) regardless of income level. It would greatly decrease the budget of the IRS as well. The tax code was written by the wealthy, to benefit the wealthy. Simple as that. Same reason Congress gets it's own health care system and the like. You'll never see someone leave Congress in the middle class.

I understand your points, and nothing I am going to say is going to change your beliefs. It's the same thing I've heard for a very long time from wealthy family/friends in many cases. I hear it from middle class family and friends occasionally, but to a much lesser extent.

[gwb72tii]

My point was, and you are in dis-agreeance with it is seems, is that just because you CAN save more money by finding more loopholes... doesn't mean you SHOULD from a moral standpoint. Especially when one of your campaign platforms is the national debt. It's a well established fact that the tax law favors the wealthy in terms of write-offs, depreciation, etc.

2 things

1. by your above post you presume that sending your hard earned wages to the federal government is the best use of your time, effort and hours worked. This is the worst choice. take your deductions like trump does and do something good with the money

2. the "wealthy" get to write off more because they make more money. This is not immoral or unethical, it is current tax law. there is nothing moral or "more" ethical about sending your money to the federal government.
In fact you could argue it is immoral as you can do more good with your tax savings by benefiting a local charity or starting a business and hiring someone.

[estoguy]

Gotta love the "basement-dwellers" and "baristas" comments. I hope that one really bites her in the ass.

The real shame though is that Sanders is still telling his supporters to vote for her. Pretty much proof positive (as if there wasn't enough before) that he's been bought. Total sell-out.

[Schnitzer318is]

any business strategy that results in almost doubling profit (not revenue... PROFIT) isn't a publicity stunt... it's a good idea.

i bet HR had a fat stack of resumes show up on their desk, too. when word's out that you pay more, the candidates will come to you and you can pick the best. also a solid strategy.

if the IT guy got pissed off and left because he didn't get a raise from $70k... that's probably because someone decided that's what he was worth. i'd have stepped in and done his job- he was probably just admining the local LAN and google apps- but that'd be a pay cut ;)

i don't think his move involved generosity at all. he made a bet on the equity he owns in his company's stock, that if he made this policy change it'd help ramp him up to go public and liquidate. he's still trying to get rich and have the mansion with the lamborghinis.

Agreed with your points.

The IT guy was a web developer with the company. He DID get a raise but was unhappy for the reasons mentioned above.

I also agree it was a calculated business move (albeit unconventional) to increase visibility and profits. We can not say how this affected his business partners as we don't have any information other than that his brother was unhappy with Price's compensation in the past and was suing. If he had done something considered traditional (move production to Mexico, cut employees, evade taxes, etc) to increase profits the establishment would be applauding him and saying to increase his salary to 2 million the following year.

Now, back on topic. Hillary sucks!!! And trump, and Johnson too!!!