Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oochymp

Presidential Election Thread

  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?

    • Hillary Clinton
    • Donald Trump
    • Gary Johnson
    • Please just shoot me now


Recommended Posts

Trump won first half hour. Won some moderates with the manufacturing and jobs talk. Started fading and going nutty as time passed. Hillary won debate on points but I think Trump will gain the most off this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly I pretty much agree with Cherry. I don't know if "won" its what I'd say but at best it was a draw in the beginning. However, the implosion from the racism, to admitting to tax fraud, to everything else is a bad look. Yelling at the moderator so you can say how good your temperament is was a very nice touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand not being thrilled with Hillary if you were a Bernie supporter but if you like Trump, I'm not sure why you liked Bernie to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly I pretty much agree with Cherry. I don't know if "won" its what I'd say but at best it was a draw in the beginning. However, the implosion from the racism, to admitting to tax fraud, to everything else is a bad look. Yelling at the moderator so you can say how good your temperament is was a very nice touch.

 

I think he definitely won it early on with the talk about manufacturing jobs disappearing but that's just personal opinion. A lot of people here in Ohio and the midwest are very disappointed in the lack of good manufacturing jobs nowadays. Why I think he won some moderates around here with those early stages. :yep:

14432994_1865218113698394_69715550881529

 

This is a stupid tweet. Why not fix the laws to tax less on businesses in the US rather than have them move to Bangladesh in the first place? :yao:

 

He's a dickhead businessman, not a humanitarian. Much like all big business owners, he is out for his own interests.

Edited by 2-14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who actually won? Hillary just eviscerated him when he tried to attack her, and he talked right out of his ass repeatedly. I find it hard to believe Trump won in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry, a fervent rump supporter: "He's a dickhead businessman, not a humanitarian. Much like all big business owners, he is out for his own interests."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found out they changed Trump tax plan from 0% income tax on all citizens making under 18k to 12% on all citizens making under 75k. If he had a shot in hell, I'd go Gary Johnson. It's still slightly better than the Hillary system, so I'd still pick Trump, but damn this is infuriating. Absolutely fucking pathetic. Made me sick to my stomach finding that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who actually won? Hillary just eviscerated him when he tried to attack her, and he talked right out of his ass repeatedly. I find it hard to believe Trump won in any way.

Trump won first half hour. Was doing good on appealing to people who lost their jobs in manufacturing. Probably snagged a few moderates. Hillary started attacking him at the end though and he got a bit unhinged. Hillary probably won whole debate.

Edited by 2-14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Trump was winning during the first 30 minutes (approximately). He was assertive without being obnoxious, and he did an excellent job as presenting himself as the "shake-up" candidate, while Hillary just looked like a boring, standard, business-as-usual politician. I actually felt Trump was on his way to a decisive win.

 

Then they transitioned to race relations, and he started melting down. I don't think he had any major gaffes, but he rambled incoherently, went all over the place, and was overly aggressive while Hillary was cool and collected.

 

Victory by decision, not knockout, for Hilldawg.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a stupid tweet. Why not fix the laws to tax less on businesses in the US rather than have them move to Bangladesh in the first place? :yao:

 

He's a dickhead businessman, not a humanitarian. Much like all big business owners, he is out for his own interests.

 

And this makes him or his almighty tax plan which you are absolutely head over heels about a good thing for this country... how exactly? The tax plan Trump proposes is universally hated by conservative and liberal economists alike. It would drive the country further into debt while putting the final nail in the coffin of the middle class. But hey the government has been destroying the middle class for decades, why stop now, right? Especially when Trump is exactly the kind of guy who has benefitted from it the most...

 

Also your fixation on a tax plan being the only reason to vote for someone is pretty ridiculous. The tax rate and the effect it has on the economy is certainly an important issue, but there are others, where Trump would also fail miserably. Most notably: foreign policy, education, healthcare, climate change (which he actually denies exists entirely lmao), race relations, immigration, and I could keep going but I think my point is sufficiently made.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower tax plan means more money in the hands of individual consumers and entrepreneurs. Allows more investment opportunities for those who want to save. Also allows more spending opportunities to those who want new products. Both the investment or the spending helps the economy.

 

The middle class is getting fucked by higher taxes, yes? Why vote Hillary when she's just making it worse? You don't help the middle class by taxing them to pay for government programs to the poor. You stimulate growth by allowing them the opportunities to make their own decisions with money they earned rather than handing it over to the government.

 

The middle class is too rich to get on welfare but too poor to dodge taxes like the wealthiest citizens who are taking business and money overseas. This leaves them with bearing the biggest tax burden of any group in the country, while mounting debt on them to pay those taxes.

 

Is it ridiculous? It's the ultimate advocation for cutting government. I value economic freedom and the most free market available over any other political issue. Because it all ties back to taxes.

 

Foreign policy. Less tax money means less incentive to go intervene in foreign wars and play security guard for other nations because we don't have the money to do it.

 

Education. I don't believe the current system is effective. Privatizing education more would be so much more beneficial to allow students to pursue what they want without having to jump through as many hoops. I absolutely dreaded getting up for school from the time I was in elementary to the last day I spent in high school. It was a meaningless task to me, and I didn't see any personal reward at the end. In college I am absolutely in love with the facilities and education I'm receiving. I enjoy getting up for school and learning things I'm actually interested about. The only argument against that would be that poor people would receive a weaker education, but I'd argue those with any promise would receive scholarships and financial assistance to go through institutions of learning solely to benefit those institutions with a promising and rewarding student.

 

Healthcare. Healthcare is cheaper when insurance companies are competing against each other, not with the government. Government healthcare is ineffective and unwilling to actually cover the costs. Also, there should be no reason for people who have no need for healthcare at a certain level to pay in solely to help others. Your healthcare. Your problem.

 

Climate change. I do not give a fuck about climate change. The market will naturally balance out once oil and coal are depleted and it's cheaper to create green energy. Over time we will shift. Let the market do its job and stop trying to control it.

 

Race relations. I'm actually becoming a fan of simply removing cops from all poor areas. Encourage neighborhood watches and a collective community effort to reduce crime and violence. No more blaming a system you see as racist. It's all on you to deal with it as a community.

 

Immigration is actually a big piece of the argument I would make for altering the minimum wage scale. You could do one of two things to deal with immigration.

 

1. Completely open the borders. Allow Mexican workers to flow into the US and work minimum wage jobs legally, thus allowing them to compete with American workers. The big issue right now is that these illegal immigrants are working for half of what an American worker is able to work for, and because of that there is no competitiveness between domestic workers versus illegal workers in that field.

 

2. Remove all minimum wage scales. Let workers work at the value the market determines. These jobs that are paying trash wages for illegal immigrants would be worth the same to American workers. And with all things equal, an American company is going to make an American worker the $5 an hour rather than pay the illegal worker $5 an hour. Personally I prefer simply opening the borders and letting them compete at current minimum wages because it allows them to have leverage against their employers for better wages without being under threat of deportation. It also wouldn't destabilize other industries as much either.

 

In my opinion, it all comes back to taxes and economics. Opening the market and allowing as much competition as possible will always be the best option. The big pitfall for most conservatives right now is crying for deregulation on jobs in the energy sector like coal and oil jobs, but wanting to regulate illegal immigration or impoverished communities (by increased policing) even harder. The same goes reversed for liberals I guess. You're either in or you're out on regulation though. I'm definitely out. And Trump is more out than Hillary as well.

 

And to the "his own interests" comment. Yes. Trump is out for his own interests. So is Hillary. Trump's interest are more along the lines of making American businesses able to compete properly and creating jobs. Hillary's interest are more along the lines of systematically benefiting big business and continuing to crush the middle class with a broken system. My interests are more in line with Trump's.

Edited by 2-14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's prep team did a good job too bad it only stuck for 30 minutes. Hillary nervously laughing half the time made me uneasy.

#LetGaryDebate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most middle class tax money doesn't go toward helping the poor. I say that acknowledging that I don't believe it goes where they tell us it goes. I think it goes toward maintaining the absurd salaries and benefits of the most useless type of people in the world--Any living, breathing American politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a thread on Reddit discussing the debate... Moderator Lester Holt asked 6 questions that he pointed towards both candidates... Hillary Clinton got 2 questions exclusively pointed to her... and Donald Trumped received 15 exclusive questions per a transcript analysis. Trump also receivd 6 follow up questions to his answers while Hillary didn't receive a single one. (again, on Reddit).

 

Take that for what it is worth.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most middle class tax money doesn't go toward helping the poor. I say that acknowledging that I don't believe it goes where they tell us it goes. I think it goes toward maintaining the absurd salaries and benefits of the most useless type of people in the world--Any living, breathing American politician.

You sure? Most of our federal tax money goes towards programs like social security and medicare IIRC. Regardless it's a poor allocation of funding from the government. Whether that's on government salaries or actual government projects. It's too ineffective. It'd be more understandable if you tried to do that stuff at a state or local level, but federally it's too big to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's prep team did a good job too bad it only stuck for 30 minutes. Hillary nervously laughing half the time made me uneasy.

 

#LetGaryDebate

What makes you think it was nervous? If anything, I was worried it was coming off a bit too smug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think it was nervous? If anything, I was worried it was coming off a bit too smug.

 

People are going to interpret it differently.. It just seemed to me like she would make a comment, not really be sure of it or maybe think she should say more. Or sometimes she just didn't know how to react to a particular comment or situation and that's how it came across.

 

I wouldn't argue with smug though.. Look at Burke Ramsay's interview with Dr. Phil.. ehh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the minimum wage entirely is just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. It's already too low for people to make a living on, yet they work on it anyway because they have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it ridiculous? It's the ultimate advocation for cutting government. I value economic freedom and the most free market available over any other political issue. Because it all ties back to taxes. - The problem with this is even people who are free-market promoters hate Trump's plan, too.

 

Foreign policy. Less tax money means less incentive to go intervene in foreign wars and play security guard for other nations because we don't have the money to do it. - Uh, what dream world are you living in? When the government wants to fund a war, it has nothing to do with the amount of taxes we pay. If they need more funding for the military, they just cut funding somewhere else (usually education is the first victim). I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge. In fact, Bush CUT taxes while we were simultaneously involved in two wars...

 

Education. I don't believe the current system is effective. Privatizing education more would be so much more beneficial to allow students to pursue what they want without having to jump through as many hoops. I absolutely dreaded getting up for school from the time I was in elementary to the last day I spent in high school. It was a meaningless task to me, and I didn't see any personal reward at the end. In college I am absolutely in love with the facilities and education I'm receiving. I enjoy getting up for school and learning things I'm actually interested about. The only argument against that would be that poor people would receive a weaker education, but I'd argue those with any promise would receive scholarships and financial assistance to go through institutions of learning solely to benefit those institutions with a promising and rewarding student. - Privatizing higher education isn't the best idea. The federal government offers the lowest interest rates on student loans, and even subsidizes their loans. The private sector would never offer nor be able to compete with that.

 

Healthcare. Healthcare is cheaper when insurance companies are competing against each other, not with the government. Government healthcare is ineffective and unwilling to actually cover the costs. Also, there should be no reason for people who have no need for healthcare at a certain level to pay in solely to help others. Your healthcare. Your problem. - Because healthy individuals never suddenly fall sick or get injured in terrible ways. I can predict exactly what time in my life I will need healthcare, so I shouldn't pay until then.

 

Climate change. I do not give a fuck about climate change. The market will naturally balance out once oil and coal are depleted and it's cheaper to create green energy. Over time we will shift. Let the market do its job and stop trying to control it. - Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves. How do we have time to wait? It's good to know you don't care about something that is already impacting the earth, and something that will only get worse as time goes on.

Race relations. I'm actually becoming a fan of simply removing cops from all poor areas. Encourage neighborhood watches and a collective community effort to reduce crime and violence. No more blaming a system you see as racist. It's all on you to deal with it as a community. - Actually, this is exactly what community policing efforts involve, but the police are still there. Whatever they did in LA back in the 1990's must have worked to clean up South Central LA. Removing cops in poor areas is not the answer. The answer is changing how the police interact with the public, and vice versa.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I said just open the borders and keep wages where they're at is a better option. I'm fine with cutting it anyways because I'm not a minimum wage worker. Benefits me more to have uneducated people working for shit wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big concern against a Trump tax plan was that he didn't release plans on cutting the budget, which led people to speculate he would cut taxes without cutting the government budget. I don't think he would do that, but it's up for debate.

 

Fair enough. It's a matter of opinion. I'd argue he would not engage in a war that costs too much because of budget concerns, but it's been done before. I do think he is a talker more than a man of action when it comes to intervention. Hillary would be way more likely to go into Iraq with boots on the ground than Trump would IMO.

 

And those are subsidized and paid for through tax money given to the federal government. Just don't tax that and let people pay the costs themselves.

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people should be responsible for their own healthcare. If you want to have money to handle procedures that you need? Save it up and keep it stored in case of a medical emergency. Or simply pay insurance to cover you. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to pay for your propped up prices. Also government intervention means higher insurance prices and costs of medical treatment anyways.

 

Yep. I don't. Personal opinion. I think market will balance out before we all die. You don't and want government intervention.

 

I'd argue simply having citizens in those areas be armed and able to defend themselves would be more effective than having police. I'm not saying eliminate the justice system entirely, but don't have officers actively patrolling communities or looking for a fight to pick.

 

Police will always naturally be inclined to cause conflicts because the more arrests they get the closer they are to meeting a quota. It's a broken system, and simply removing police from it removes the big issue that is apparently so prevalent in poor urban communities: Police targeting blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone like you who advocates people having more money in their pockets. The only people who benefit from people working for shit wages are people like Trump and other billionaires/mega rich business owners, and you're neither.

 

Raising the minimum wage would improve the entire economy, not just the standards for working people. I will argue with anyone who says a raise in the minimum wage would increase unemployment. If anything it would decrease unemployment over time. Here's what I think, though of course my overly-simplistic view of things could be inaccurate:

 

Joe Schmo right now makes 7.25 an hour. Joe Schmo goes to work the next day and his boss tells him he just got a raise to $12.00 an hour. Joe Schmo goes home from work that night with a smile on his face as he greets his unusually-happy wife. He learns that the Federal minimum wage was raised to $12.00 an hour. 3 million people in the USA suddenly make 5 dollars more an hour. Joe Schmo can take his lovely wife and kids to dinner, take the kids to an amusement park, a baseball game, the movies, go out to the bar with his friends, save up for a new car, take a vacation, or anything else he wants to do.

 

Now Joe Schmo has a lot more buying power than he did yesterday, so what is he going to do? Well, he's going to spend that money! So what happens when 3 million Joe Schmos start spending more money all of a sudden? Demand for all sorts of products skyrockets. The two biggest industries to benefit immediately would be tourism and hospitality (so we're talking hotels, restaurants, resorts and the like). These two industries alone could create millions of jobs.

 

So while there will be people who initially lose work due to a raise in wages, it would be offset and perhaps even eclipsed, in the long run, by the number of new jobs created due to skyrocketing demands and people with the ability to buy shit. And people would suddenly have an increased motivation to find work, now that this lifestyle is suddenly available to them.

 

Also an uneducated society benefits nobody. Would you want your grandfather's triple bypass to be performed by someone with substandard education?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. It's a matter of opinion. I'd argue he would not engage in a war that costs too much because of budget concerns, but it's been done before. I do think he is a talker more than a man of action when it comes to intervention. Hillary would be way more likely to go into Iraq with boots on the ground than Trump would IMO.

 

And those are subsidized and paid for through tax money given to the federal government. Just don't tax that and let people pay the costs themselves.

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people should be responsible for their own healthcare. If you want to have money to handle procedures that you need? Save it up and keep it stored in case of a medical emergency. Or simply pay insurance to cover you. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to pay for your propped up prices. Also government intervention means higher insurance prices and costs of medical treatment anyways.

 

Yep. I don't. Personal opinion. I think market will balance out before we all die. You don't and want government intervention.

 

I'd argue simply having citizens in those areas be armed and able to defend themselves would be more effective than having police. I'm not saying eliminate the justice system entirely, but don't have officers actively patrolling communities or looking for a fight to pick.

 

Police will always naturally be inclined to cause conflicts because the more arrests they get the closer they are to meeting a quota. It's a broken system, and simply removing police from it removes the big issue that is apparently so prevalent in poor urban communities: Police targeting blacks.

 

-

 

When asked about ISIS, Trump said he "would hit them so hard and so fast that they wouldn't know what happened." He later claimed his approach would be one that historical military figures General Douglas McArthur and General George Patton would approve of.

 

- The idea is to make education more accessible, not less.

 

- How are people going to save money for healthcare when they don't have enough money for savings in general?

 

- The market isn't going to balance out before we all die. There's enough oil in the world for 50 more years of consumption at the current rate. The best way to solve a problem is get ahead of it. But the time has already passed for that. Now the only thing we can do is play catch up before it's too late. I think you should take your economy glasses off for a minute and realize there are things going on that require you to stop thinking about dollars and cents. The future of this planet is in serious jeopardy. Regardless of how much money it costs, we must take steps now to ensure there is a planet for our grandchildren, otherwise no amount of money anyone has will mean anything in 100 years.

 

- I think a much better idea is to require all police officers to at least have an associates degree. The government offers incredible education discounts to our military. They can do the same for police. Have police officers go to college and experiences lots of diversity. They'll come out better equipped to deal with the diverse nature of a policing job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×