This debate

[Kris]

You are scared of white males? Seriously? Holy smokes. This is why our country is falling apart. Get it together.

I couldn't be shaking my head more. 

Why are you shaking your head? As a white male myself, is there any group out there more likely to murder me than other white males?

Indeed.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/02/sally-kohn/sally-kohn-white-men-69-percent-arrested-violent/

[2buttons]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

[Kris]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

[MasterStache]

I don't think the questions were unfair or biased negatively towards Trump. I expected whoever moderated would ask pointed questions towards Trump considering his blatantly false claims and propensity to compulsively lie.

That's definitely accurately descriptive of Trump, but have you met Hillary?

No I haven't met Hillary. Nor have I met Trump. But that is irrelevant on a lying scale, in which case Hillary couldn't hold a freaking candle to Trump's massive whoppers.

I expect our leader to have at least some shred of accountability, integrity. Trumps has none, zero, zip zilch, nadda.

A shred of accountability would be nice, and that is what we will get with Trump.  People will suddenly become very interested in constitutional limits on presidential authority and checks and balances if Trump is elected.  If Hillary gets elected it will be more of the same.  Give me an awful, bad, terrible, no good president who the "elites" view as gold plated trailer trash over an awful, bad, terrible, no good president who teh "elites" view as one of their own.

I don't have the slightest clue where you get the Trump has any sort of accountability. Accountability requires being honest.

No.  It doesn't.  It just requires that other people hold you accountable.  We have a media dominated by democrats that will minimize the political pain for not holding Hillary accountable.  They will amplify the political pain for not holding Trump accountable.

LMAO, how is that accountability working out for Trump now? He has soaring poll numbers yet hasn't accepted accountability for anything, why would that suddenly change if he becomes Pres? Being put into the ultimate position of power is not going to quell his distinct NPD. It's going to exacerbate it.

I don't think Hillary shined either though. I am not a fan of either, but Trump still refuses to get even the most basic arguments correct. The birther issue, Iraq war withdrawal (which he still blames on Obama). Good fucking grief it takes a couple minutes to fact check this stuff.

  Who would you blame for Iraq war withdrawal?  Not sure what Trump claims, but Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, and then made sure to offer a Status of Forces Agreement that Iraqi's could not politically accept, and then he withdrew and took credit for it.  I don't know if Obama should be blamed for withdrawing, but he made the decision to withdraw rather than keep forces there.

No Obama did not make the decision to withdraw. Again fact checking is your friend. The agreement was made BEFORE Obama was even in office. It's not our country. I don't give a rats ass what sort of half as agreement Obama tried to make. Invading was the worst decision Bush ever made, and withdrawing was the best. What are you going to do? Occupy the country forever? BTW, I served in Iraq not that it matters. And I voted for Bush.  I was young dumb and foolish.

Obama was president when we withdrew.  Iraqi leaders wanted him to keep 20-24k troops there.  Obama made the decision to not stay.  He wasn't bound by anything Bush planned.  Whether it was a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but as you said, it's pretty easy to fact check.  You are already on the internet for goodness sake.  Just type in a few google searches.

Wrong again. Iraqi leaders were split on weather they wanted to keep some American forces for training, airspace protection and gathering intel. Some wanted troops to stay others wanted them to leave completely, including the Shiite militiamen who promised more bloodshed. But the key point was that Iraq government would not promise protection for American troops from prosecution in Iraq courts. You would understand why that is important if you ever find yourself in some shit hole court. So Obama did not make the decision. The Iraq parliament did by not accepting the agreement put forth.

If you want to give credit to Obama, heck go right ahead. As I stated withdrawing was the best thing we ever did in Iraq. And again I say that as someone spent time in Iraq, not as some armchair warrior. 

[nereo]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

Agreed.  I have a 'y' chromosome and I'm over 18, which to me is enough to consider myself a man.  Saying that someone needs to "be a man" implies that it's a behavioral thing.  Besides peeing while standing up, I can't come up anything that I do that my wife, sister or female friends also don't do.

[2buttons]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

[Kris]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

Emasculate: deprive (a man) of his male role or identity.

Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination.

Um...?

[nereo]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

[2buttons]

Laughable. By your definition if I stereotype an Asian person regarding driving it's sexist? Seriously? If you are going to cook definitions at least make it pass the sniff test.

[2buttons]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

[Kris]

Laughable. By your definition if I stereotype an Asian person regarding driving it's sexist? Seriously? If you are going to cook definitions at least make it pass the sniff test.

No. That would be racist.

Try to keep up. You asked me to google. I did. I posted what I found.

I thought you implied that a simple google search would prove me horrendously wrong?

[2buttons]

Send the link to what you googled so we can all judge.

[boarder42]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

It's cool to be offended.  New societal norms.

[nereo]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

It isn't that my feelings are hurt, it's that I don't understand what you mean, particularly in the context that you used it in. 
Did you mean that a man doesn't fear other men?  Or that our country is falling apart (your words) because more people were not acting 'like men'?  or that if you don't 'get it together' you aren't a man?

what, exactly, are you trying to say here?  I have no doubt it's clear to you but your meaning is completely opaque to me.

[2buttons]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

It's cool to be offended.  New societal norms.

(Trigger warning) You couldn't be more correct.

[2buttons]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

1. Google sexism. As you are wrong again.
2. Do you know what emasculate means?

When did it become my job to teach research 101?

1) Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex (from Merriam-Webster)
Personally, when I hear someone say "be a man" I interpret it as sexist, precisely because its projecting a stereotype of what a man "should" be onto me.

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

It isn't that my feelings are hurt, it's that I don't understand what you mean, particularly in the context that you used it in. 
Did you mean that a man doesn't fear other men?  Or that our country is falling apart (your words) because more people were not acting 'like men'?  or that if you don't 'get it together' you aren't a man?

what, exactly, are you trying to say here?  I have no doubt it's clear to you but your meaning is completely opaque to me.

Are you being serious? Like seriously you don't know the answers to these questions?

[ender]

Let's make this thread great again, please.

[nereo]

I am sorry I hurt your feelings.

It isn't that my feelings are hurt, it's that I don't understand what you mean, particularly in the context that you used it in. 
Did you mean that a man doesn't fear other men?  Or that our country is falling apart (your words) because more people were not acting 'like men'?  or that if you don't 'get it together' you aren't a man?

what, exactly, are you trying to say here?  I have no doubt it's clear to you but your meaning is completely opaque to me.

Are you being serious? Like seriously you don't know the answers to these questions?

Yes, I am being serious.  I do not know what is in your head, and I do not know specifically what you meant.  I've asked you four or five times, but you keep evading.

[Kris]

Send the link to what you googled so we can all judge.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Google "sexism". Then google "emasculate". JUST LIKE YOU TOLD ME TO DO. You won't even have to scroll down to find what I pasted here.

Honestly. I can't even believe I bothered responding to this. I'm done.

[2buttons]

sorry for making you discuss facts. I know it's a bother.

[a plan comes together]

OK, back to the debate....

One of my favorite parts about the debate that nobody has brought up today is when Trump called the wambulance about hillary running 'very nasty ads' about him. If you go watch any of Hillary's ads, they are basically just clips of Trump saying ridiculous things over the last decade or so and people watching it in silence.

So... is he saying the stuff he said is nasty? Or that people are watching it in silence?
Is he painting himself as the victim for having said those things and now having those statements replayed b/c he's running for President?

I'm confused.

[Carrie]

Hillary won that debate. DT basically admitted to not paying income taxes, mumbled something about not paying architects (& other contractors & businesses) if he decided he didn't like the building, and claiming that he only got a very small loan from dad (the rest of his huge success was all his). Of course Hillary set him up, but he took the bait.
I got out of it that he doesn't care about the little people.
It pissed me off that so many are so blind to his idiocy.
I'd rather have 4 yrs of Hillary than 1 day of trump. I'm not a registered democrat, but I have self respect and I read books, know big words, am too smart for his bs. Also grew up with mental illness (parent) and you do not want someone with his disorders making decisions.

[nereo]

OK, back to the debate....

One of my favorite parts about the debate that nobody has brought up today is when Trump called the wambulance about hillary running 'very nasty ads' about him. If you go watch any of Hillary's ads, they are basically just clips of Trump saying ridiculous things over the last decade or so and people watching it in silence.

So... is he saying the stuff he said is nasty? Or that people are watching it in silence?
Is he painting himself as the victim for having said those things and now having those statements replayed b/c he's running for President?

I'm confused.

Hmm... interesting point.  It does seem strange that Trump gets upset when people use his own statements and tweets to contradict what he previously said.  He's doesn't even claim that he's being taken out of context or he's changed his position.  Instead he's defense seems to be "I never said that."  um.... whaaa?

[VladTheImpaler]

Send the link to what you googled so we can all judge.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Google "sexism". Then google "emasculate". JUST LIKE YOU TOLD ME TO DO. You won't even have to scroll down to find what I pasted here.

Honestly. I can't even believe I bothered responding to this. I'm done.

Kris,
Just ignore 2buttons.
Don't feed the troll....IMPALE HIM.

[Jeremy E.]

Lol

[LeRainDrop]

There is not just one particular archetype of the "average viewer" of the debate. 

Less/uneducated viewers will be turned off to Hillary's use of words that contain 3 or more syllables.  Even this demographic understands (although may be unable to articulate) that she is incredibly sharp and incredibly intelligent. 

This became so clear to me! I didn't watch, but my wife did. I asked if Trump gave a clear argument for protectionism. She said "protec-what? Didn't come up" Ehh, that's kinda the main pillar and focus of all his talk on the economy! You know; that thing most votes cite as most important to them! Maybe that wasn't the focus of this debate, but I did hear they talked about jobs going to Mexico.. I would think they'd ask him to defend trade policy debunked 90 years ago, and which happens to be his main shtick. Protectionism, capital flow vs rates, currency flotations; these are things I'd like to hear them discuss.. Not holding my breath.

Perhaps your wife missed that part -- it was towards the beginning of the debate, IIRC -- but Trump definitely talked about foreign trade and protectionism, though not to the detail level you'd like.  That's one of the topics where the post-debate consensus seems to be that he scored a few points.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta.html

[nereo]

Well this is interesting...
Following the debate the Arizona Republic endorses Clinton.  This is the first time in it's 126 year history that it has endorsed the democrat.
They state that Trump is "not a conservative, and not a Republican.", and go on to say that "[Clinton] has the temperament and experience necessary to be president... despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton is clearly the superior choice."

An interesting mix of condemnation for Trump and begrudging respect for Clinton from a conservative newspaper.

[ender]

Well this is interesting...
Following the debate the Arizona Republic endorses Clinton.  This is the first time in it's 126 year history that it has endorsed the democrat.
They state that Trump is "not a conservative, and not a Republican.", and go on to say that "[Clinton] has the temperament and experience necessary to be president... despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton is clearly the superior choice."

An interesting mix of condemnation for Trump and begrudging respect for Clinton from a conservative newspaper.

I will admit I was confused during the "stop and frisk" portion when it felt that Clinton/Trump were both arguing the opposite of their party viewpoints.

[a plan comes together]

Well this is interesting...
Following the debate the Arizona Republic endorses Clinton.  This is the first time in it's 126 year history that it has endorsed the democrat.
They state that Trump is "not a conservative, and not a Republican.", and go on to say that "[Clinton] has the temperament and experience necessary to be president... despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton is clearly the superior choice."

An interesting mix of condemnation for Trump and begrudging respect for Clinton from a conservative newspaper.

Yeah - there is a lot of this conservative media now coming out in favor of Clinton. Do Trump supporters even care? Probably not. The print news media has been a lot better than TV/radio this election on being critical of Trump, but they haven't been the greatest either.

[nereo]

Well this is interesting...
Following the debate the Arizona Republic endorses Clinton.  This is the first time in it's 126 year history that it has endorsed the democrat.
They state that Trump is "not a conservative, and not a Republican.", and go on to say that "[Clinton] has the temperament and experience necessary to be president... despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton is clearly the superior choice."

An interesting mix of condemnation for Trump and begrudging respect for Clinton from a conservative newspaper.

I will admit I was confused during the "stop and frisk" portion when it felt that Clinton/Trump were both arguing the opposite of their party viewpoints.

Clinton has long been a centrist democrat, which puts her to the right of many core members of her party, particularly when it comes to her hawkish military stance and her approach to law and order.
Trump... he contradicts the viewpoints of his party in some many ways it's hard to understand how he can be the standard bearer. About the only GOP view he's been consistent on is cutting tax rates on the wealthy and on businesses.

[MasterStache]

Well this is interesting...
Following the debate the Arizona Republic endorses Clinton.  This is the first time in it's 126 year history that it has endorsed the democrat.
They state that Trump is "not a conservative, and not a Republican.", and go on to say that "[Clinton] has the temperament and experience necessary to be president... despite her flaws, Hillary Clinton is clearly the superior choice."

An interesting mix of condemnation for Trump and begrudging respect for Clinton from a conservative newspaper.

I will admit I was confused during the "stop and frisk" portion when it felt that Clinton/Trump were both arguing the opposite of their party viewpoints.

Clinton has long been a centrist democrat, which puts her to the right of many core members of her party, particularly when it comes to her hawkish military stance and her approach to law and order.
Trump... he contradicts the viewpoints of his party in some many ways it's hard to understand how he can be the standard bearer. About the only GOP view he's been consistent on is cutting tax rates on the wealthy and on businesses.

I would add his stance on war (increasing military spending), and global warming are all inline with the typical GOP views. Although one could argue "most" GOP'ers believe in AGW behind closed doors. I love that Clinton hit him on his claim that China created climate change. Hilarious and of course he denied saying as such.

[nereo]

Yeah - there is a lot of this conservative media now coming out in favor of Clinton. Do Trump supporters even care? Probably not. The print news media has been a lot better than TV/radio this election on being critical of Trump, but they haven't been the greatest either.

Well one thing Trump has managed to do post-debate is keep the lion's share of the media focused on him, talking about him, printing and saying "Trump."  First he lights a mini-controversy by complaining his microphone was defective.  Then he goes on Fox to double-down on his comments against Ms. Universe (Alicia Muchado).  His campaign continued to talk about whether he did or didn't call climate change a hoax without admitting to anything (despite numerous tweets).

His one consistent strategy since announcing his bid has been to keep as much attention on him as possible, always, regardless of whether it's good or bad. If nothing else it limits how much the public gets to hear of his opponents' message.

[nereo]

I would add his stance on war (increasing military spending), and global warming are all inline with the typical GOP views. Although one could argue "most" GOP'ers believe in AGW behind closed doors. I love that Clinton hit him on his claim that China created climate change. Hilarious and of course he denied saying as such.

This election cycle Trump has viciously attacked Bush's decision to go into Iraq (even though he was for it at the time) and his been deeply critical of "regime change" - a hallmark of recent GOP policy.  He does seem to be in favor of escalating attacks on potential threats, which seems to be the exention of Bush's "pre-emptive strike" policies applied to non-sovereign entities like ISIS/ISIL. This is more in line with the stategy followed by the Obama administration against terrorist networks.

Climate change I'll give you - the GOP platform has and continues to be skeptical of the anthropogenic impacts on our climate.

[MasterStache]

I would add his stance on war (increasing military spending), and global warming are all inline with the typical GOP views. Although one could argue "most" GOP'ers believe in AGW behind closed doors. I love that Clinton hit him on his claim that China created climate change. Hilarious and of course he denied saying as such.

This election cycle Trump has viciously attacked Bush's decision to go into Iraq (even though he was for it at the time) and his been deeply critical of "regime change" - a hallmark of recent GOP policy.  He does seem to be in favor of escalating attacks on potential threats, which seems to be the exention of Bush's "pre-emptive strike" policies applied to non-sovereign entities like ISIS/ISIL. This is more in line with the stategy followed by the Obama administration against terrorist networks.

Climate change I'll give you - the GOP platform has and continues to be skeptical of the anthropogenic impacts on our climate.

I was looking at it more in terms of putting boots on the ground in Syria and his claim of "not standing for" the Russian flybys or Iran boat encounters and such. Trump isn't the kind of guy who will simply write a letter of reprimand. I fear that egomaniac would be respond with actual force. You have a valid point as well though.

[Jrr85]

You are scared of white males? Seriously? Holy smokes. This is why our country is falling apart. Get it together.

I couldn't be shaking my head more. 

Why are you shaking your head? As a white male myself, is there any group out there more likely to murder me than other white males?

It's highly unlikely that you'll be murdered by a "group".  It's probably highly unlikely you'll be murdered at all (although this is based on an assumption that you live a relatively normal life not involved in the drug trade or other criminal activity, etc). 

If you are scared of white males, you either need to get some help for your neurosis or you need to get a basic understanding of the risks you face. 

[Jrr85]

Apparently racism is alive and well.

Well, sexism, at least, judging from "be a man"...

Please for gods sakes tell me why telling a man to be man is sexist?

Because you are telling a person who is already a man to "be a man" -- meaning, some ridiculous definition of "manhood" that apparently you get to define. You've basically emasculated a man by saying that he's not measuring up to your standards, and that apparently, you are the judge of what a man is. How much more sexist can you be?

Agreed.  I have a 'y' chromosome and I'm over 18, which to me is enough to consider myself a man.  Saying that someone needs to "be a man" implies that it's a behavioral thing.  Besides peeing while standing up, I can't come up anything that I do that my wife, sister or female friends also don't do.

^^^Transphobic^^^

[nereo]

Agreed.  I have a 'y' chromosome and I'm over 18, which to me is enough to consider myself a man.  [/b

^^^Transphobic^^^

not even.  Notice the deliberate choice of words - i consider myself a to be a man. I'm not deciding what criteria others should use.

[ender]

You are scared of white males? Seriously? Holy smokes. This is why our country is falling apart. Get it together.

I couldn't be shaking my head more. 

Why are you shaking your head? As a white male myself, is there any group out there more likely to murder me than other white males?

It's highly unlikely that you'll be murdered by a "group".  It's probably highly unlikely you'll be murdered at all (although this is based on an assumption that you live a relatively normal life not involved in the drug trade or other criminal activity, etc). 

If you are scared of white males, you either need to get some help for your neurosis or you need to get a basic understanding of the risks you face.

About 50% of murders come from people you know, so perhaps if you only know <demographic> that does result in a higher likelihood of of being killed by that demographic?

[infogoon]

OK, back to the debate....

One of my favorite parts about the debate that nobody has brought up today is when Trump called the wambulance about hillary running 'very nasty ads' about him. If you go watch any of Hillary's ads, they are basically just clips of Trump saying ridiculous things over the last decade or so and people watching it in silence.

My favorite part was when the question about Trump's role in the birther movement somehow morphed into his complaining about American airports, and Hillary quietly pointed out that our airports and infrastructure might be a bit nicer if he paid his taxes.

It was one of the few moments where she said something that wasn't obviously planned and preprogrammed, and it was goddamned hilarious.

[HPstache]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

[daverobev]

Re: Sexism - is it only me that's noticed everyone says "Trump" and "Hillary"?

Clinton = business as usual; depressing but what can you do.

Trump = joke. Did anyone read the thing where he removed health insurance from a nephew with cerebral palsy (in the thread about cruelty) out of sheer spite? He's not a cloak and dagger, fuck you over kind've guy. He is an absolute, blatant, fuck everyone but me, I don't care if you cross me or not I'll stab you in the back, the front, or anywhere I feel like it. He's... Jackass. He's an egomaniac, with reality distortion field in full operation. He's fucking Zaphod Beeblebrox - the center of the universe, in his own mind. He's capricious, vain.

My God. Clinton's bad. But Trump is... I mean honestly, he shouldn't be in charge of a sand castle building contest, let alone a country.

[Gin1984]

Re: Sexism - is it only me that's noticed everyone says "Trump" and "Hillary"?

Clinton = business as usual; depressing but what can you do.

Trump = joke. Did anyone read the thing where he removed health insurance from a nephew with cerebral palsy (in the thread about cruelty) out of sheer spite? He's not a cloak and dagger, fuck you over kind've guy. He is an absolute, blatant, fuck everyone but me, I don't care if you cross me or not I'll stab you in the back, the front, or anywhere I feel like it. He's... Jackass. He's an egomaniac, with reality distortion field in full operation. He's fucking Zaphod Beeblebrox - the center of the universe, in his own mind. He's capricious, vain.

My God. Clinton's bad. But Trump is... I mean honestly, he shouldn't be in charge of a sand castle building contest, let alone a country.

Not just you but most of us are tired of pointing it out.

[a plan comes together]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

Nobody knows for sure, but with a legion of tax lawyers, and I'm sure offshore accounts, I'm sure he's done every shady maneuver in the book (that the common man/woman does not have access to) in order to avoid any sort of tax obligation whatsoever. Meanwhile, he talks a big game about infrastructure improvements while simultaneously wanting to slice taxes on the highest income brackets. Maybe he has some magic dust he can sprinkle on all of our roads and airports?

[dividendman]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

I believe he pays little or no federal income tax due to not owing any. Of course it's smart for any individual to lower their tax burden legally and of course, only rich folks have the ability to avoid federal income taxes in these ways (I believe Trump uses some real estate loopholes). I think it a bit cute to have a federal income tax platform that benefits the rich when you don't pay any federal income tax yourself.

[HPstache]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

I believe he pays little or no federal income tax due to not owing any. Of course it's smart for any individual to lower their tax burden legally and of course, only rich folks have the ability to avoid federal income taxes in these ways (I believe Trump uses some real estate loopholes). I think it a bit cute to have a federal income tax platform that benefits the rich when you don't pay any federal income tax yourself.

Isn't his proposal to have a rate of 33% for those making over $225,000 with no exemptions?  That would require him and many others to pay 33% tax who normally use exemption loop holes to pay ~0%.  Honestly, I don't understand the "in's" and "out's" of his proposal so I'm happy to be corrected.

Edited because I had the wrong numbers in at first

[nereo]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

I believe he pays little or no federal income tax due to not owing any. Of course it's smart for any individual to lower their tax burden legally and of course, only rich folks have the ability to avoid federal income taxes in these ways (I believe Trump uses some real estate loopholes). I think it a bit cute to have a federal income tax platform that benefits the rich when you don't pay any federal income tax yourself.

Trump has been very vocal about wanting to do away with the estate tax - currently it excludes $5.45MM per person.  Only about 0.2% of households have to pay the estate tax.  Assuming Trump has even a small fraction of the money he claims to have his children would benefit greatly from repealing the estate tax.  To be fair so would the Clintons, although to a much smaller degree.

At this stage in his life, Trump's greatest tax liability remains the estate tax (at 40% of total assets - the $5.45MM deduction).

[GAR]

The Tax Foundation (which I think is generally cited as a non-partisan non-profit) has posted info on both candidates' tax plans.  You can find that info here:

Trump: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016
Clinton: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals (although note that this article was posted early in 2016 so some of the details of her plan may have changed).

[nereo]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

I believe he pays little or no federal income tax due to not owing any. Of course it's smart for any individual to lower their tax burden legally and of course, only rich folks have the ability to avoid federal income taxes in these ways (I believe Trump uses some real estate loopholes). I think it a bit cute to have a federal income tax platform that benefits the rich when you don't pay any federal income tax yourself.

Isn't his proposal to have a rate of 33% for those making over $225,000 with no exemptions?  That would require him and many others to pay 15% tax who normally use exemption loop holes to pay ~0%.  Honestly, I don't understand the "in's" and "out's" of his proposal so I'm happy to be corrected.

Edited because I had the wrong numbers in at first

Ah, but it's a shell game.  Trump's tax proposal changes rates on earned income, and his proposal is to keep the capital gains rate structure the same while boosting the standard deduction.  Under his plan, those people who have little or no earned income but substantial capitol gains income will pay much, much less*.  He's also proposed lowering the business tax from 35 to 15 percent and eliminate both the individual and business AMT.

His stated plan makes no mention of changing how business loses will be treated, so I'd assume that would remain the same.

*it's worth noting that under his plan an ER couple would pay nothing in taxes on the first $30k in capitol gains in taxable accounts.  For many of us on this site, it could mean (in theory at least) paying no taxes, ever.

[HPstache]

I need a clarification.... does Trump literally not pay taxes, or is he just not owe taxes?  I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be in jail, and I guess that does indeed sound "smart" to me... isn't that what we all try to do here is lower our taxable income?

I believe he pays little or no federal income tax due to not owing any. Of course it's smart for any individual to lower their tax burden legally and of course, only rich folks have the ability to avoid federal income taxes in these ways (I believe Trump uses some real estate loopholes). I think it a bit cute to have a federal income tax platform that benefits the rich when you don't pay any federal income tax yourself.

Isn't his proposal to have a rate of 33% for those making over $225,000 with no exemptions?  That would require him and many others to pay 15% tax who normally use exemption loop holes to pay ~0%.  Honestly, I don't understand the "in's" and "out's" of his proposal so I'm happy to be corrected.

Edited because I had the wrong numbers in at first

Ah, but it's a shell game.  Trump's tax proposal changes rates on earned income, and his proposal is to keep the capital gains rate structure the same while boosting the standard deduction.  Under his plan, those people who have little or no earned income but substantial capitol gains income will pay much, much less*.  He's also proposed lowering the business tax from 35 to 15 percent and eliminate both the individual and business AMT.

His stated plan makes no mention of changing how business loses will be treated, so I'd assume that would remain the same.

*it's worth noting that under his plan an ER couple would pay nothing in taxes on the first $30k in capitol gains in taxable accounts.  For many of us on this site, it could mean (in theory at least) paying no taxes, ever.

Thanks for the clarification.  Would Clinton's plan make him and other uber wealthy people pay their fair share?  Or is she just raising the tax on those people, but they'd all still use the loop holes to pay zero?

Here's a funny scenario.  Let's say Trump becomes president and raises the standard deduction to $30K for married couples.  Some couple who is a MMM follower and is FIREd goes 20 years owing no taxes and therefore paying no taxes under this plan.  Then he/she decides to run for president... would that person be rediculed for not paying taxes, or would they be "smart".  It's funny to think about...

[2buttons]

Re: Sexism - is it only me that's noticed everyone says "Trump" and "Hillary"?

I am not following. Is the suggestion that he is referred to by last name and she is by first name is somehow sexist? 

I would think that they are used because its easier to identify the individual. As in Trump is much more recognized as a brand than say Donald and that Hillary is easier to identify her, rather than Clinton given her husband was Prez.