Who Does Everyone Here Support For President and Why?

[Pooperman]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Put the move left in an historical context first. The US has moved right considerably in the last 30-40 years. In a way, the left move is a move back towards where the center used to be. It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

[wienerdog]

Are the Republicans going to come up with some way to block Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination?   and if they do, who would get the nomination?

The don't have to come up with a way they just pick who they want.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

[hedgefund10]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Put the move left in an historical context first. The US has moved right considerably in the last 30-40 years. In a way, the left move is a move back towards where the center used to be. It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

Bernie gives less personal freedom

[starguru]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Put the move left in an historical context first. The US has moved right considerably in the last 30-40 years. In a way, the left move is a move back towards where the center used to be. It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

I don't agree with your first two sentences.  I would agree that in some ways we have moved right (i.e. taxes are lower than they are historically) but in many (more) ways I think we are way left of where we were 30 years ago (immigration, abortion, gay marriage, ACA, etc). 

But none of that matters, we need new ideas to solve these problems in a balanced way.  To do that, the first step is most people have to convince themselves that they aren't necessarily right about everything, or at least that the opposition has some valid concerns/view points.  I don't see any of that coming from any of the candidates. 

 

[Midwest]

It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

When you say authoritarianism, are you referencing things like drug policy, nsa/personal freedoms, and gun control? 

[Pooperman]

It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

When you say authoritarianism, are you referencing things like drug policy, nsa/personal freedoms, and gun control?

I'm socially a libertarian. Basically do whatever you wanna do with whomever so long as no one's rights are violated. Have all the guns you want, but don't go out and shoot people. Take all the drugs you want so long as you're not a danger to others. Screw whomever you want however you want as long as their rights are not violated. You get the idea. For me, the role of government is to prevent extreme situations (full on socialism and full on capitalism are not good), provide essential services, protect the country (not be warmonger-y), and deal with tragedy of the commons issues (like the environment or natural resources). Economically, I fall left of center mostly due to my distrust of corporations to do the right thing without being told to do it.

So, yes, when I say authoritarianism, I am meaning the erosion of the bill of rights (not just the second amendment) and some of the other articles in the constitution that are under fire.

[hedgefund10]

It's the authoritarianism direction in US politics that annoys me the most. We can debate the left/right stuff when it comes to economics and I can see all sides. I just like my personal freedom haha.

Will Trump or Cruz make personal freedoms better or worse? Likely worse. Not sure about Kasich since I don't know much about him. I like Bernie, but he's unelectable. Hillary also isn't great. However, I'd prefer another step away from hate.

When you say authoritarianism, are you referencing things like drug policy, nsa/personal freedoms, and gun control?

I'm socially a libertarian. Basically do whatever you wanna do with whomever so long as no one's rights are violated. Have all the guns you want, but don't go out and shoot people. Take all the drugs you want so long as you're not a danger to others. Screw whomever you want however you want as long as their rights are not violated. You get the idea. For me, the role of government is to prevent extreme situations (full on socialism and full on capitalism are not good), provide essential services, protect the country (not be warmonger-y), and deal with tragedy of the commons issues (like the environment or natural resources). Economically, I fall left of center mostly due to my distrust of corporations to do the right thing without being told to do it.

So, yes, when I say authoritarianism, I am meaning the erosion of the bill of rights (not just the second amendment) and some of the other articles in the constitution that are under fire.

Economically, I'm more concerned with the government doing the right thing.

[Bucksandreds]

I think this entire exchange demonstrates that our politics and our politicians have failed us.  We need someone to lead us out of this political quagmire.  Both sides need to realize that we can't win unless we all at least generally agree on solutions that are in the middle.  And there are the solutions in the middle that, while they will not make anyone completely happy, most reasonable people can live with, and might actually do some good.  Seriously.

Hillary is a deal maker. I promise you that. Now the Freedom Caucus of the republican house needs to be broken and Ted Cruz type stuff in the Senate needs to end and real change (carried interest exemption abolished, corporate inversions abolished, reforming corporate tax code, expansion of EITC) could be completed in weeks.

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Funny, everyone knows that things only get done when everyone compromises and then you explain that republicans won't compromise. Yet you complain that Hillary is the divisive party of the 2. With immigration, there is no way they will kick everyone out so if they won't compromise then everything stays the same.  Republicans claim they want to shrink the deficit yet won't compromise on new forms of revenue. Out of one side of their mouths the republicans claim the democrats won't work with them then out of the other side they say that their positions are non negotiable. The Republican Party is controlled by raging lunatics who's positions are not based in reality but in making their decisions in the way that they believe will get them re elected.  At some point the Republican Party is going to collapse and a new Republican Party based in reality will form out of it.

[Midwest]

Funny, everyone knows that things only get done when everyone compromises and then you explain that republicans won't compromise. Yet you complain that Hillary is the divisive party of the 2. With immigration, there is no way they will kick everyone out so if they won't compromise then everything stays the same. 

Trump's position on immigration (shipping illegal immigrants back) is silly and impractical.  I think he's the only republican championing that one.

On the other hand, democrats seem to want an open border with Mexico and preferential treatment for those here illegally.  Democrats refuses to enforce deportation laws (executive order), write the ACA with an exemption for illegal immigrants, and go after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote. 

There's plenty of blame to go around on the lack of compromise.

[sol]

Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

We must be living in different Americas.  I thought it was Ted Cruz who championed shuttering the US government because he demanded the Democrats repeal the ACA.

Democrats refuses to enforce deportation laws (executive order)

We must be living in different Americas.  I thought Obama deported more immigrants than any US President in history.

[Midwest]

Sol -

Take a look at this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

and this

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/01/24/eimmigrationscotus/sVGeCcTQkzvWCG0w2OXmZJ/story.html

[starguru]

Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

We must be living in different Americas.  I thought it was Ted Cruz who championed shuttering the US government because he demanded the Democrats repeal the ACA.

Ted Cruz is certainly no better.  My point is none of these people are going to solve any of our problems. We need someone who doesn't subscribe to either parties views.

Democrats refuses to enforce deportation laws (executive order)

We must be living in different Americas.  I thought Obama deported more immigrants than any US President in history.

The point is no one is leading us to consensus on what we should be doing on this and other issues.  The extreme left wants free passports for everyone and no borders.  The extreme right wants to ship all brown people back.  Reaching consensus will require those who think in party rhetoric terms to compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xclonexclonex]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

Really.  An immoral choice for president.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html?_r=0

Sure whatever you say.

Also, don't worry us "minorities", as if my skin color is of any significance. I will be fine, I came this far, and I don't need any liberal telling me that I am a victim.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Bucksandreds]

Funny, everyone knows that things only get done when everyone compromises and then you explain that republicans won't compromise. Yet you complain that Hillary is the divisive party of the 2. With immigration, there is no way they will kick everyone out so if they won't compromise then everything stays the same. 

Trump's position on immigration (shipping illegal immigrants back) is silly and impractical.  I think he's the only republican championing that one.

On the other hand, democrats seem to want an open border with Mexico and preferential treatment for those here illegally.  Democrats refuses to enforce deportation laws (executive order), write the ACA with an exemption for illegal immigrants, and go after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote. 

There's plenty of blame to go around on the lack of compromise.

Yet Obama has deported more illegals than any president, ever.  You can say that it's just a change in terminology but 2 million people who would be illegally here are not under Obama. How is it that democrats want an 'open border?' Your argument is not based in reality. Again, which is the party that refuses to give but just demands everything?
http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/

A compromise on immigration will definitely allow 'Dreamers' to stay, will punish businesses who hire illegals, will beef up border enforcement and will open a path for more immigrants from Central America fleeing drug violence. If the right can't negotiate to somewhere near this then they are the ones who won't compromise.  I already know the answer. The right will never compromise on this because more democrat votes will result. The right just needs to stfu about compromise because it's so ridiculously obvious to the vast majority of us not on the far right, what is going on.

[Midwest]

The point is no one is leading us to consensus on what we should be doing on this and other issues.  The extreme left wants free passports for everyone and no borders.  The extreme right wants to ship all brown people back.  Reaching consensus will require those who think in party rhetoric terms to compromise.

I think the right would be screaming about this if these were white canadians as well. There are 11M people in our country illegally.  There are some racists, yes, but it has a lot less to do with race and more about controlling our borders.

Secure the southern border and then lets talk about what to do from here.

[Midwest]

Yet Obama has deported more illegals than any president, ever.  You can say that it's just a change in terminology but 2 million people who would be illegally here are not under Obama. How is it that democrats want an 'open border?' Your argument is not based in reality. Again, which is the party that refuses to give but just demands everything?
http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/

See above cites.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Govt statistics suck.

[xclonexclonex]

Unfortunately the GOP, in Trump, is getting what they have nurtured over the past ten years.  The veiled anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor rhetoric has come back to bite them.  The big promises of taking down the big-bad-government, when they knew all this was just bluster for the red-meat masses, and they had no plan to actually carry thru any of this crap, has led to an angry base.  Well - now you have the devil you spawned. 

This basically sums it up. 

You can trace the evolution of the current GOP back to Nixon who won two national elections basically scaring the shit out of white people everywhere, and Republicans have been doing it ever since. Blacks, immigrants, black presidents, Gay people- all just scary boogeymen the GOP have been demonizing for a couple of generations now. And sure, the people doing the demonizing probably don't all really think Blacks, immigrants and gay people are all that bad, but hey, if it gets some tax cuts passed, whatevs.. 

But it would seem they've gone to the well too many times now. Basically anyone who isn't white won't touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole, and they're the group of people growing most rapidly in America. And the people they've been scaring the past 40 years?  Well they're finally looking around wondering what exactly they've been voting for all this time. It's a shame that Trump is the outlet for these people but at a certain level I understand their anger.

I am extremely brown and I will gladly vote for Trump.

I could go into reasons why,  but it doesn't matter. Left wing supporters already labeled me an idiot (because obviously, they are the intellectuals and they get to look down on the common folks). I just know that I am not a leftist who believes all brown people are oppressed and need the help of the government to get ahead in life.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[the_gastropod]

I'm socially a libertarian. Basically do whatever you wanna do with whomever so long as no one's rights are violated. Have all the guns you want, but don't go out and shoot people. Take all the drugs you want so long as you're not a danger to others. Screw whomever you want however you want as long as their rights are not violated. You get the idea. For me, the role of government is to prevent extreme situations (full on socialism and full on capitalism are not good), provide essential services, protect the country (not be warmonger-y), and deal with tragedy of the commons issues (like the environment or natural resources). Economically, I fall left of center mostly due to my distrust of corporations to do the right thing without being told to do it.

So, yes, when I say authoritarianism, I am meaning the erosion of the bill of rights (not just the second amendment) and some of the other articles in the constitution that are under fire.

My beef with libertarianism is that, ideally, it's great. In practice, no man is an island. One man's "rights" are rarely enjoyed without affecting another. Using your example: if someone "has all the guns they want", their neighbors become at greater risk for gun injury due to theft, mismanagement of said guns, gun accidents, etc. Drugs use has similar consequences. For example, if a person takes drugs irresponsibly, and winds up in the emergency room, it drives EVERYONE's healthcare costs up. As a final example, I'll mention smoking, as its ban in restaurants, airplanes, etc. is fairly popular. Very few people would argue that smoking on an airplane should be a personal freedom. It's hazardous to the well being of those around the smoker.

As a society, we (usually) acknowledge that some regulation and safety nets are preferable to anarchy. Libertarianism, as I understand it, attempts to ignore the abuses that can, and do, occur by individuals over-excersising their "personal freedoms". There must be a nuanced balance between protecting personal freedoms, and protecting everyone else. An over-simplification of society where "YOU DO YOU" is the mantra seems irresponsible, and dangerous.

[starguru]

The point is no one is leading us to consensus on what we should be doing on this and other issues.  The extreme left wants free passports for everyone and no borders.  The extreme right wants to ship all brown people back.  Reaching consensus will require those who think in party rhetoric terms to compromise.

I think the right would be screaming about this if these were white canadians as well. There are 11M people in our country illegally.  There are some racists, yes, but it has a lot less to do with race and more about controlling our borders.

Secure the southern border and then lets talk about what to do from here.

The first step would be to establish consensus as to whether we should have a secure border in the first place.  Because I think apologists from both sides still argue about that,  or about whether it is already secured (enough), or whether our current border situation is a problem. Once consensus exists on whether we should have a secure border, as a nation we could act on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hedgefund10]

Funny, everyone knows that things only get done when everyone compromises and then you explain that republicans won't compromise. Yet you complain that Hillary is the divisive party of the 2. With immigration, there is no way they will kick everyone out so if they won't compromise then everything stays the same. 

Trump's position on immigration (shipping illegal immigrants back) is silly and impractical.  I think he's the only republican championing that one.

On the other hand, democrats seem to want an open border with Mexico and preferential treatment for those here illegally.  Democrats refuses to enforce deportation laws (executive order), write the ACA with an exemption for illegal immigrants, and go after states for requiring proof of citizenship to vote. 

There's plenty of blame to go around on the lack of compromise.

Yet Obama has deported more illegals than any president, ever.  You can say that it's just a change in terminology but 2 million people who would be illegally here are not under Obama. How is it that democrats want an 'open border?' Your argument is not based in reality. Again, which is the party that refuses to give but just demands everything?
http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/

A compromise on immigration will definitely allow 'Dreamers' to stay, will punish businesses who hire illegals, will beef up border enforcement and will open a path for more immigrants from Central America fleeing drug violence. If the right can't negotiate to somewhere near this then they are the ones who won't compromise.  I already know the answer. The right will never compromise on this because more democrat votes will result. The right just needs to stfu about compromise because it's so ridiculously obvious to the vast majority of us not on the far right, what is going on.

Only if the left "stfu" about protecting the middle class. Bill Clinton sold out the middle class when he signed NAFTA

[Midwest]

My beef with libertarianism is that, ideally, it's great. In practice, no man is an island. One man's "rights" are rarely enjoyed without affecting another. Using your example: if someone "has all the guns they want", their neighbors become at greater risk for gun injury due to theft, mismanagement of said guns, gun accidents, etc.

Your risks from your neighbors guns are exceedingly low in most cases.  Not enough to infringe upon the rights of gun owners in my opinion.

Drugs use has similar consequences. For example, if a person takes drugs irresponsibly, and winds up in the emergency room, it drives EVERYONE's healthcare costs up.

Marijuana has little of the downsides quoted yet the federal govt has refused to legalize it.  Think of all the law enforcement $'s we put into marijuana for no good reason.

I suspect securing the southern border (as mentioned above) would help significantly with our hard drug problem.

As a final example, I'll mention smoking, as its ban in restaurants, airplanes, etc. is fairly popular. Very few people would argue that smoking on an airplane should be a personal freedom. It's hazardous to the well being of those around the smoker.

Completely agree with you on the plane.  Disagree on bars/rest.  My state instituted a smoking ban years ago.  Many rest were already smoke free.  Those that allowed smoking were losing business anyway.  Why did the state need to get involved?

[tomsang]

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Clinton's positions align pretty closely with Ronald Reagan, we just have gone significantly right since he was in office.

Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and active labor act in 1986, which forced hospitals to provide medical care for patients in emergency rooms without regard to payment, citizenship, or legal status. ACA light at a time when hospitals could turn away patients if they could not pay the bill.

Immigration - He passed the Immigration reform act that allowed up to 4 million illegal immigrants to become legal.

Taxes - Reagan raised taxes many times throughout his presidency.  Total tax burden was higher during his term than under Obama's.

I also don't think Reagan would be electable as the GOP stands today, but that is because of how much the GOP has veered right since he was in office.     

[Bucksandreds]

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Clinton's positions align pretty closely with Ronald Reagan, we just have gone significantly right since he was in office.

Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and active labor act in 1986, which forced hospitals to provide medical care for patients in emergency rooms without regard to payment, citizenship, or legal status. ACA light at a time when hospitals could turn away patients if they could not pay the bill.

Immigration - He passed the Immigration reform act that allowed up to 4 million illegal immigrants to become legal.

Taxes - Reagan raised taxes many times throughout his presidency.  Total tax burden was higher during his term than under Obama's.

I also don't think Reagan would be electable as the GOP stands today, but that is because of how much the GOP has veered right since he was in office.     

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants.  Instead of negotiating they said 'No' to everything and obstructed.  They have done this because demographic changes are making things less advantageous to them and if they actually submitted to the will of the majority then there would be more legal minorities (even worse still for their voting demographics) and returning closer to the average 20th century taxation level (worse for their rich backers.). They are basically guaranteed to lose a great deal of control, in the long run, so their answer is obstructing change and screaming blame at the other side as well as using social wedge issues so as to keep as many votes as possible.

A great example of the right's screaming blame for obstructing while actually being the obstructors is the failure of Simpson Bowles commission. It was a bipartisan commission for managing federal debt and expenditures. It failed to get enough commission votes to be considered by congress, the right (several years after it failed) attempted (very successfully due to republican voter ignorance) to blame Obama for it's failure.  A poster earlier in this thread tried to blame Obama and I corrected him. The reason Simpson Bowles was never considered by congress is because too many congressmen in the commission voted against it. The majority of those were republican. Do yourself a favor and read this link below. You'll have a deservedly poor opinion of Paul Ryan, afterwards.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/30/ryan-and-simpson-bowles-commission-full-story/

[the_gastropod]

Your risks from your neighbors guns are exceedingly low in most cases.  Not enough to infringe upon the rights of gun owners in my opinion.

You're probably right. My point wasn't to state that guns should be illegal because of this. Just that these risks are a reality.

Marijuana has little of the downsides quoted yet the federal govt has refused to legalize it.  Think of all the law enforcement $'s we put into marijuana for no good reason.

I suspect securing the southern border (as mentioned above) would help significantly with our hard drug problem.

Again, I wasn't speaking to the efficacy, or the types of drug enforcement we use. I was simply stating that the costs from irresponsible drug use are partially subsidized by fellow citizens.

Completely agree with you on the plane.  Disagree on bars/rest.  My state instituted a smoking ban years ago.  Many rest were already smoke free.  Those that allowed smoking were losing business anyway.  Why did the state need to get involved?

Sure, maybe. My only point is that a black/white "DON'T TREAD ON ME" narrative espoused by libertarians is oversimplified. As a society, we need to choose what balance to strike.

[Midwest]

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants. 

Obstruction isn't unique to the right - http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/obama-vetoes-bill-repealing-affordable-care-act-as-lawmakers-vow-override-votes/

Whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision, he obstructed the will of congress.  I would say that's separation of powers in action rather than obstructionism.

[starguru]

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Clinton's positions align pretty closely with Ronald Reagan, we just have gone significantly right since he was in office.

Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and active labor act in 1986, which forced hospitals to provide medical care for patients in emergency rooms without regard to payment, citizenship, or legal status. ACA light at a time when hospitals could turn away patients if they could not pay the bill.

Immigration - He passed the Immigration reform act that allowed up to 4 million illegal immigrants to become legal.

Taxes - Reagan raised taxes many times throughout his presidency.  Total tax burden was higher during his term than under Obama's.

I also don't think Reagan would be electable as the GOP stands today, but that is because of how much the GOP has veered right since he was in office.     

I think its hard to talk about GOP standards because there seems to be a rift in the party.  There are standards for the likes of Bush/Kasich/Rubio that seems right center (to varying degrees) and then right of them there seems to be beliefs of the likes of Cruz.  Trump is a phenomena in and of himself. 

I think you could compare some of Clintons policies to Reagan's, but Im not sure what the point is.  The US is not in the same place as it was in the 80s. 

And to my point of building consensus, I think we really just need to start over on a lot of the issues and decide where we want to be going forward. 

[Bucksandreds]

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants. 

Obstruction isn't unique to the right - http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/obama-vetoes-bill-repealing-affordable-care-act-as-lawmakers-vow-override-votes/

Whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision, he obstructed the will of congress.  I would say that's separation of powers in action rather than obstructionism.

Veto is a designed check on legislative power put in the constitution on purpose. If you already understood that then you're being intellectually dishonest. Blocking things and then lying about who did the blocking is obstruction. You're grasping at straws.

[Bucksandreds]

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Clinton's positions align pretty closely with Ronald Reagan, we just have gone significantly right since he was in office.

Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and active labor act in 1986, which forced hospitals to provide medical care for patients in emergency rooms without regard to payment, citizenship, or legal status. ACA light at a time when hospitals could turn away patients if they could not pay the bill.

Immigration - He passed the Immigration reform act that allowed up to 4 million illegal immigrants to become legal.

Taxes - Reagan raised taxes many times throughout his presidency.  Total tax burden was higher during his term than under Obama's.

I also don't think Reagan would be electable as the GOP stands today, but that is because of how much the GOP has veered right since he was in office.     

I think its hard to talk about GOP standards because there seems to be a rift in the party.  There are standards for the likes of Bush/Kasich/Rubio that seems right center (to varying degrees) and then right of them there seems to be beliefs of the likes of Cruz.  Trump is a phenomena in and of himself. 

I think you could compare some of Clintons policies to Reagan's, but Im not sure what the point is.  The US is not in the same place as it was in the 80s. 

And to my point of building consensus, I think we really just need to start over on a lot of the issues and decide where we want to be going forward.

How do you start over as long as one side calls everything that isn't exactly what they want non negotiable?

[Midwest]

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants. 

Obstruction isn't unique to the right - http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/obama-vetoes-bill-repealing-affordable-care-act-as-lawmakers-vow-override-votes/

Whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision, he obstructed the will of congress.  I would say that's separation of powers in action rather than obstructionism.

Veto is a designed check on legislative power put in the constitution on purpose. If you already understood that then you're being intellectually dishonest. Blocking things and then lying about who did the blocking is obstruction. You're grasping at straws.

I'm glad veto is there. 

Paul Ryan may  have obstructed and lied.  Both sides obstruct and lie. 

My only point is that both sides do it.  You seem to believe that feature is unique to the Republicans. 

[hedgefund10]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-19/protesters-form-highway-blockade-stop-traffic-trump-rally-arizona-live-feed

This is why I can't get along with the left, they support stuff like this. Why must they inconvenience the rest of us? Wonder how they would feel if I blocked their driveway monday morning so they couldn't get to work? If I encountered something like this, I would just bowl right through them.

[2buttons]

I can't think of a single way this thread will turn out badly.

This might be the smartest post in this entire thread. I mean that sincerely.

[starguru]

Clintons stated positions are already incompatible with any compromise at all on many of the issues.  She is already calling for raising taxes, she is already calling for expanding ACA, she is already calling for path to citizenship on immigration.  All of those positions offer no compromise to the viewpoints of Republicans.  Most importantly, her rhetoric is divisive, not conciliatory.  She wants to lead us left of the path we are on, not to new proposals that could span the divide.

Clinton's positions align pretty closely with Ronald Reagan, we just have gone significantly right since he was in office.

Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and active labor act in 1986, which forced hospitals to provide medical care for patients in emergency rooms without regard to payment, citizenship, or legal status. ACA light at a time when hospitals could turn away patients if they could not pay the bill.

Immigration - He passed the Immigration reform act that allowed up to 4 million illegal immigrants to become legal.

Taxes - Reagan raised taxes many times throughout his presidency.  Total tax burden was higher during his term than under Obama's.

I also don't think Reagan would be electable as the GOP stands today, but that is because of how much the GOP has veered right since he was in office.     

I think its hard to talk about GOP standards because there seems to be a rift in the party.  There are standards for the likes of Bush/Kasich/Rubio that seems right center (to varying degrees) and then right of them there seems to be beliefs of the likes of Cruz.  Trump is a phenomena in and of himself. 

I think you could compare some of Clintons policies to Reagan's, but Im not sure what the point is.  The US is not in the same place as it was in the 80s. 

And to my point of building consensus, I think we really just need to start over on a lot of the issues and decide where we want to be going forward.

How do you start over as long as one side calls everything that isn't exactly what they want non negotiable?

Look, it takes two to tango.  It's not fair or correct to place all the blame on one side.  There is no doubt republicans by and large have not been willing to work with Obama, but Obama has done his fair share of ramming policy thru (ACA, Tax Act 2014, non-stop executive actions) and not offering many serious concessions to get Republicans on board.  I personally think every member of congress should resign in disgrace.

Regardless, since we are at an election year, this is a chance for people who just want these problems solved thru compromise, who want political divisiveness to end, to stand up and make their voice heard.  Of course, there is no consensus candidate, so unfortunately we will probably be relegated to another 4 years of nothing getting done.

[Yaeger]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

[starguru]

Edit nevermind

[hedgefund10]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

Heard that, especially on marriage. Don't understand why married persons have a lower tax rate. If anything single persons should have a lower tax rate since there is more risk due to one income.

[Midwest]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

Heard that, especially on marriage. Don't understand why married persons have a lower tax rate. If anything single persons should have a lower tax rate since there is more risk due to one income.

If both spouses work, in many cases there is a marriage penalty.  Not a lower tax tax rate.

[Bucksandreds]

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants. 

Obstruction isn't unique to the right - http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/obama-vetoes-bill-repealing-affordable-care-act-as-lawmakers-vow-override-votes/

Whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision, he obstructed the will of congress.  I would say that's separation of powers in action rather than obstructionism.

Veto is a designed check on legislative power put in the constitution on purpose. If you already understood that then you're being intellectually dishonest. Blocking things and then lying about who did the blocking is obstruction. You're grasping at straws.

I'm glad veto is there. 

Paul Ryan may  have obstructed and lied.  Both sides obstruct and lie. 

My only point is that both sides do it.  You seem to believe that feature is unique to the Republicans.

And this is the guy leading the republican congress.

 "Ryan blaming Obama for the commission’s failure is "disingenuous, misleading and the worst form of hypocritical politics. It’s the political equivalent of killing your parents and then begging the court for mercy because you’re an orphan" (from my above Simpson Bowles link) that level of lying, to me indicates complete and utter lack of respect for voters as well as a disingenuous attempt to blame shift that has been so prevalent in the Republican Party. Where are democrats lying about things that they are 100% sure are not true when they were said?

[Midwest]

The right has become the party of screaming anger (well before Trump) about any change that the left wants. 

Obstruction isn't unique to the right - http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/08/obama-vetoes-bill-repealing-affordable-care-act-as-lawmakers-vow-override-votes/

Whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision, he obstructed the will of congress.  I would say that's separation of powers in action rather than obstructionism.

Veto is a designed check on legislative power put in the constitution on purpose. If you already understood that then you're being intellectually dishonest. Blocking things and then lying about who did the blocking is obstruction. You're grasping at straws.

I'm glad veto is there. 

Paul Ryan may  have obstructed and lied.  Both sides obstruct and lie. 

My only point is that both sides do it.  You seem to believe that feature is unique to the Republicans.

And this is the guy leading the republican congress.

 "Ryan blaming Obama for the commission’s failure is "disingenuous, misleading and the worst form of hypocritical politics. It’s the political equivalent of killing your parents and then begging the court for mercy because you’re an orphan" (from my above Simpson Bowles link) that level of lying, to me indicates complete and utter lack of respect for voters as well as a disingenuous attempt to blame shift that has been so prevalent in the Republican Party. Where are democrats lying about things that they are 100% sure are not true when they were said?

Your point?

This is the guy leading the democratic party.  That was an FU to republicans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1121/Elections-have-consequences-Does-Obama-regret-saying-that-now

This is the leading democratic candidate.  Those look distinctly like bribes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

I'm not vilifying the entire party over this or letting republicans off the hook.  Both sides are broken.

[CheapScholar]

The past me from even a few months ago would not believe the current me saying this, but I support Trump.  First, let me say I don't condone his comments with racist overtones.  Second, let me say I think with Trump those comments are purely political - I don't think he is a racist himself, I think he is trying to rally a segment of the southern Republican base.  Maybe that's wrong, but it certainly has worked for him.

I'm a Republican and I'm starting to change my tune on free trade.  Both parties since WWII have been saying free trade was flawless.  But, at some point, doesn't the trade deficit matter?  I studied international law in law school and I've studied economics.  I get the theories of Ricardo and others about why protectionism is bad, but I look at America now as a country that produces nothing and buys everything.  We buy it all on credit with money we don't have.  And we are over consuming in ways that are trashing the environment.  I see Trump as a possible Renaissance to the GOP days of McKinley - make our own products and have prosperity and jobs at home.  I doubt Trump would ever put it into such words, but that's how I see him.  His ideas on trade are starting to make sense to me, and I think he will pick up a LOT of blue collar Democrats.  Guys who work in manufacturing, drive F150s and love their guns.  They've been voting Democrat for years because their unions convinced them it was good for them.  But, on labor issues, Trump is arguably to the left of Hillary.  And that will change everything in November.

[wenchsenior]

Are the Republicans going to come up with some way to block Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination?   and if they do, who would get the nomination?

The don't have to come up with a way they just pick who they want.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

It's kind of funny to consider how Trump was recently picking fights with Paul Ryan. I wonder if Trump was aware that, come the convention, Ryan (as most powerful current GOP member and titular head of the party) can just move on the floor to change the voting rules regardless of whether Trump has sufficient delegates to 'win'. Theoretically, even disregarding a brokered convention or whatever, there is nothing to stop Ryan from opening the convention and saying, "Let's all vote to change 'pledged' delegates to 'free' delegates". They vote, and it passes. Then Ryan says, "I now move to nominate <insert Romney, Jeb, himself, or whomever> as the candidate for the GOP". They vote and it passes. Poof, no nomination for the The Donald.

This is highly unlikely to ever happen of course, because it would cause so much turmoil. But there will be a whole lot of 'pledged' delegates at that convention who don't personally support Trump, so it could happen, hypothetically. And Trump would have no legal recourse if it did.

Convention 'rules' are so weird.

[hedgefund10]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

Heard that, especially on marriage. Don't understand why married persons have a lower tax rate. If anything single persons should have a lower tax rate since there is more risk due to one income.

If both spouses work, in many cases there is a marriage penalty.  Not a lower tax tax rate.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking dollar for dollar and marginal tax rates.

Single person making $50K owes $8300 to the IRS
Married couple making $50K owes $6600 to the IRS

[Midwest]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

Heard that, especially on marriage. Don't understand why married persons have a lower tax rate. If anything single persons should have a lower tax rate since there is more risk due to one income.

If both spouses work, in many cases there is a marriage penalty.  Not a lower tax tax rate.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking dollar for dollar and marginal tax rates.

Single person making $50K owes $8300 to the IRS
Married couple making $50K owes $6600 to the IRS

Read my post - "if both spouses work"

2 married people making 150k each (300 total) pay $74,000 - 33% marginal rate
2 single people living together making 150k each (300 total) pay $70,000 total - 28% marginal rate

That doesn't factor in things like better limits on retirement for singles. 

[hedgefund10]

I find it hard to agree with anyone that says the country has gotten more right over the last 20-30 years. That's a ridiculous statement. EVERYTHING the right stands against has been growing: entitlement programs, welfare programs, size of government, the debt, record number of regulations on employers and business, individual tax burdens, underemployment, etc.

Whereas things the right typically stand for have been shrinking: individual freedoms, free market economy, Capitalism, Defense is getting pushed out by more popular spending programs, etc.

Things like 'gay rights' wasn't a huge step forward for society, it was a push to get more people onto a government program subsidized by the taxpayer (marriage). People saying that the country has gotten more right are just ignoring, or selectively interpreting, the facts.

Heard that, especially on marriage. Don't understand why married persons have a lower tax rate. If anything single persons should have a lower tax rate since there is more risk due to one income.

If both spouses work, in many cases there is a marriage penalty.  Not a lower tax tax rate.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking dollar for dollar and marginal tax rates.

Single person making $50K owes $8300 to the IRS
Married couple making $50K owes $6600 to the IRS

Read my post - "if both spouses work"

2 married people making 150k each (300 total) pay $74,000 - 33% marginal rate
2 single people living together making 150k each (300 total) pay $70,000 total - 28% marginal rate

That doesn't factor in things like better limits on retirement for singles.

I see you are confusing filing status vs. household.

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K. It doesn't matter if both spouses work and each make $25K or one works. THE SINGLE PERSON ALWAYS PAYS MORE

Why are we subsidizing marriage?

[Midwest]

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K.

Why not?  if I get divorced and live with my ex wife, my overall tax bill goes down.

Plenty of singles live together.  Why are we subsidizing their decision to live in sin?

Feel free to run my numbers by your manager.

[MoonShadow]

Are the Republicans going to come up with some way to block Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination?   and if they do, who would get the nomination?

The don't have to come up with a way they just pick who they want.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

It's kind of funny to consider how Trump was recently picking fights with Paul Ryan. I wonder if Trump was aware that, come the convention, Ryan (as most powerful current GOP member and titular head of the party) can just move on the floor to change the voting rules regardless of whether Trump has sufficient delegates to 'win'. Theoretically, even disregarding a brokered convention or whatever, there is nothing to stop Ryan from opening the convention and saying, "Let's all vote to change 'pledged' delegates to 'free' delegates". They vote, and it passes. Then Ryan says, "I now move to nominate <insert Romney, Jeb, himself, or whomever> as the candidate for the GOP". They vote and it passes. Poof, no nomination for the The Donald.

This is highly unlikely to ever happen of course, because it would cause so much turmoil. But there will be a whole lot of 'pledged' delegates at that convention who don't personally support Trump, so it could happen, hypothetically. And Trump would have no legal recourse if it did.

Convention 'rules' are so weird.

Not only would this be unlikely to occur, and definitely result in a civil war inside the party (if that isn't already a certainty anyway), it would also violate several state laws for the delegates to vote differently than their binding on the first vote, and usually the 2nd, regardless of what rule changes the Repubs make at the convention.  The binding rules are set by the state party conventions, within limits of state laws, which vary significantly.  I don't know what the consequences, if any, there would be to delegates that switched their vote.

On some level, I wonder if Trump wants the party to split.

[hedgefund10]

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K.

Why not?  if I get divorced and live with my ex wife, my overall tax bill goes down.

Plenty of singles live together.  Why are we subsidizing their decision to live in sin?

Feel free to run my numbers by your manager.

Simple. Because "Single and living together" isn't recognized as a filing status by the IRS. You live in fairy land. I'll give your numbers to the Janitor, seems like more your speed.

[Midwest]

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K.

Why not?  if I get divorced and live with my ex wife, my overall tax bill goes down.

Plenty of singles live together.  Why are we subsidizing their decision to live in sin?

Feel free to run my numbers by your manager.

Simple. Because "Single and living together" isn't recognized as a filing status by the IRS. You live in fairy land. I'll give your numbers to the Janitor, seems like more your speed.

The marriage penalty lesson just provided will come in handy if you ever study for your CFA. 

[hedgefund10]

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K.

Why not?  if I get divorced and live with my ex wife, my overall tax bill goes down.

Plenty of singles live together.  Why are we subsidizing their decision to live in sin?

Feel free to run my numbers by your manager.

Simple. Because "Single and living together" isn't recognized as a filing status by the IRS. You live in fairy land. I'll give your numbers to the Janitor, seems like more your speed.

The marriage penalty lesson just provided will come in handy if you ever study for your CFA.

The filing status lesson just provided will come in handy if you ever study for your CPA.

[MoonShadow]

I'm a Republican and I'm starting to change my tune on free trade.  Both parties since WWII have been saying free trade was flawless.  But, at some point, doesn't the trade deficit matter?  I studied international law in law school and I've studied economics.  I get the theories of Ricardo and others about why protectionism is bad, but I look at America now as a country that produces nothing and buys everything.  We buy it all on credit with money we don't have.  And we are over consuming in ways that are trashing the environment.

I'm a libertarian.  My view isn't that free trade is bad, but that so called 'free trade pacts' aren't conducive to actual free trade.  They are deliberately misnamed, but are closer to a 'crony capitalism pact', which isn't exactly the opposite of a free trade pact, but nor do they move international trade towards actual free trade.  I will not vote for Trump, but I do understand (better than most) what he is actually doing here.  His campaign is a pure populist play, and I doubt he is ideologically married to any of it.  As for his supposed racist comments, I'd like to see them in video, because I've heard plenty of hearsay & supposed quotes from Trump; but I' skeptical that they are real.  He is certainly sexist to some degree, but I don't give a damn about that, and I've yet to actually meet a woman under the age of 50 that was actually offended by anything Trump has said in public about any woman.  Most of the time they just say he is right, regarding the comments about particular women.  Political correctness was already dying, Trump just came along at the right time and drove a stake through it's heart.  Politics in the US will never be quite the same in our lifetimes.

[hedgefund10]

You can't compare two single people living together. That is apple and oranges. Fact of the matter is everything else equal, one single person making 50K ALWAYS pays more than a married couple making 50K.

Why not?  if I get divorced and live with my ex wife, my overall tax bill goes down.

Plenty of singles live together.  Why are we subsidizing their decision to live in sin?

Feel free to run my numbers by your manager.

Simple. Because "Single and living together" isn't recognized as a filing status by the IRS. You live in fairy land. I'll give your numbers to the Janitor, seems like more your speed.

The marriage penalty lesson just provided will come in handy if you ever study for your CFA.

Could you point out where I can check "Single and Living Together"