Hillary Sucks.

[gwb72tii]

trump is not a conservative; not fiscally nor in regards to social policies.

i used to agree with your point but then listened and read his platform.
his tax proposals in particular are conservative, other than believing people like himself ought to pay more in taxes (the evil rich).

[gwb72tii]

you're happy with the platform huh? Not surprised. Hey, are you also endorsing David Duke? Too bad you can't vote for him, being in the wrong state and all..

dude, calm down

[b-rad]

Both parties need to get back to the center.
Now back to me researching my E30, please... I think more people need hobbies. :)

[marshallnoise]

Both parties need to get back to the center.
Now back to me researching my E30, please... I think more people need hobbies. :)

No, they don't. I want as much political friction as possible. When government works, it reduces freedom. That's the only equation there is in this.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[gwb72tii]

No, they don't. I want as much political friction as possible. When government works, it reduces freedom. That's the only equation there is in this.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

:thankyou:

[BraveUlysses]

i used to agree with your point but then listened and read his platform.
his tax proposals in particular are conservative, other than believing people like himself ought to pay more in taxes (the evil rich).

Well there's problems to "listening" to DJT: he frequenly contradicts himself and changes his stance, almost on a day to day basis. I think you choose to cling to the points you agree with and ignore the contradictory ones.

As for the income tax plan, you believe he thinks he should pay more? Because changing the top tax bracket down to 25% for normal income and 20% for capital gains is not going to reduce his income or wealth.

Maybe you should, I dunno, read a few of the analysis of trump's tax plan? because even if you think lowering income and corporate taxes are a "conservative" thing to do, they aren't revenue neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...-tax-plan/full

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/is-trumps-tax-plan-revenue-neutral/

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances

All four of these differences with current law are extremely large tax cuts. For example, the top marginal individual rate is currently paid by a lot of people who earn a lot of money. If a star actor is paid $10 million for a movie, Mr. Trump’s plan would collect about $1.4 million less from that actor. Over our country’s vast array of highly-compensated employees, this adds up very quickly.

Also important are the individual rate cuts farther down the bracket structure. While middle-class Americans have much less money to tax, they are numerous; even a small reduction in rates at the lower end of the scale could apply to nearly a hundred million households. It is worth remembering that the 0% rate on the first $50,000 of income doesn’t just apply to taxpayers earning under that amount. It applies to all taxpayers. Lowering the bottom bracket delivers a benefit to low- and high-income taxpayers alike.

Finally, a perhaps-overlooked but extremely important tax cut in the plan is the reduction in rates on pass-through businesses. Pass-through businesses are a large and growing share of all business in the U.S., and the rate reduction on these is very large. Consider that the top rate under the Trump plan is less than two fifths of what it is under current law. A highly productive pass-through business (such as, for example, some of the businesses owned by Mr. Trump) would see its tax bill fall by more than half.

Critical thinking, try it some time.

[djjerme]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...-tax-proposals

Well, they sure don't seem to fans of Hill-bots plan either. Or maybe I am just reading too much in to their analysis.

Personal opinion - The government doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Too many promises to too many people (contracts, social services..etc.) it needs to figure out how to get that spending under control. Unfortunately, it'll never happen.

[nando]

dude, calm down

I'm not excited, not sure what you mean - I think it's funny and sad at the same time, that you'd be willing to back a person like Voldemo- er, Donald just because he has the letter (R) next to his name.

[gwb72tii]

I'm not excited, not sure what you mean - I think it's funny and sad at the same time, that you'd be willing to back a person like Voldemo- er, Donald just because he has the letter (R) next to his name.

i've never been a republican
i am interested however in how you're going to cast your ethics aside an vote for hillary?

[marshallnoise]

i've never been a republican
i am interested however in how you're going to cast your ethics aside an vote for hillary?

Ethics? We don't need no stinking ethics!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[nando]

Because Trump cannot be president.

There are definitely things I don't like about Hilary. At the top is her support for the war in Iraq and the toppling of the Gaddafi - she wasn't exactly alone in that support however. Second is the dumb idea of having a personal email server, which has cost her a lot of support for no real gain (and created more conspiracy theories for the tin-foil-hat types).

They just aren't anywhere close in scale to how horrible Trump is.

[marshallnoise]

Because Trump cannot be president.

There are definitely things I don't like about Hilary. At the top is her support for the war in Iraq and the toppling of the Gaddafi - she wasn't exactly alone in that support however. Second is the dumb idea of having a personal email server, which has cost her a lot of support for no real gain (and created more conspiracy theories for the tin-foil-hat types).

They just aren't anywhere close in scale to how horrible Trump is.

With what actual support do you base this conclusion on? His personality? That's about the only thing I can determine you are drawing your conclusions on.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[nando]

uh, all the things he says and does? are you blind, deaf and dumb?

how about his constant attacks on war heroes to start?

[marshallnoise]

uh, all the things he says and does? are you blind, deaf and dumb?

how about his constant attacks on war heroes to start?

Being a war hero doesn't exempt you from criticism. I don't even know what the hoopla is about this latest one but surely you aren't including McCain in that classification.

What's worse? Someone with questionable ethics in Hillary, or someone who has looser lips than he should in Trump?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[nando]

calling Mcain a loser because he was a POW isn't "criticism". use your brain. It's not just one isolated incident either, and not just one group of people. It's constant and consistent.

Trump has no ethics. Come off it. He only cares about Trump.