EPTTruth doesn't need stellar points or cool arguments.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4599
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10600 Posts
Truth doesn't need stellar points or cool arguments. | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
I'm willing to take the risk and put him in charge. Right now it's either stay with the status quo(Hillary) or go with a change(Trump). I'm 100% with Trump. Economists can argue back and forth all day and make predictions. They aren't always right. So instead of the person who you believe is bought, you vote for the person who is doing the buying. Smart. cut out the middleman. In 4 (or heaven forbid 8) years Trump is back to being a businessman. I'm sure you can trust him to totally not try to pass laws or treaties that are in his favor as a businessman. /s No... my point is that Trump is unaffected by the lobbyists and special interest. He self funded his entire campaign. Whether or not he's corrupt is another question, but I truly believe he actually wants to "make america gret again" | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9374 Posts
Trump sup. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:45 MasterCynical wrote: I'm doubtful on his "good deals" and approach too, but right now, the US has a trillion dollar a year deficit on top of a $19trillion debt. It doesn't get worse than that. I'm willing to take the risk and put him in charge. Right now it's either stay with the status quo(Hillary) or go with a change(Trump). I'm 100% with Trump. Economists can argue back and forth all day and make predictions. They aren't always right. It does get worse than that... Trump's proposed plans: While his plan limits certain tax preferences and deductions, it does not include any reductions in federal spending. As a result, the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment. ~ http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/donald-trumps-tax-plan-primary/ The committee’s researchers, working from estimates by the (also nonpartisan) Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, determined that, taken together, the tax cuts would add something like $9.25 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. ... Other items on Trump’s agenda, including his promises to overhaul veteran services and repeal the Affordable Care Act, would add a few hundred billion dollars to that total. With no significant new revenues or spending cuts to offset these costs, and with the higher interest payments that so much new borrowing would require, the cumulative impact of Trump’s agenda would probably be around $11.5 trillion in additional federal debt over 10 years, the committee’s researchers found. ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-debt_us_57701efbe4b0dbb1bbbae2c9 Donald Trump’s tax-cut plan could add as much as $24.5 trillion to the national debt over the coming 20 years ~ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Trump-s-Tax-Cuts-Would-Add-245-Trillion-Debt If you're looking for a president who is trying to get us out of debt, it is absolutely not Donald Trump. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:47 funkie wrote: http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/07292016/donald-trump-star-exemption-and-tax-returns Trump sup. That last sentence in the article sums it up quite well: "He can’t release his taxes because it would put the lie to everything he purports to stand for. " | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:45 MasterCynical wrote: I truly believe he actually wants to "make america gret again" I believe that too, but I know he has no idea how to do it, and his platforms would definitely make America worse. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: If you support trump and your reason isn' "i want to see the world burn" or among these lines your either not thinking and just vote for the d/r or you are retarded. I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
BREAKING: Hours After First Intelligence Briefing, Trump Likely Leaked CLASSIFIED Secrets Despite the fact that Senator Harry Reid and other high ranking intelligence officials from both sides have asked that Donald Trump not be given access to classified information just yesterday, today, Trump was given his first shot learning sensitive information this afternoon. Trump attended an intelligence briefing this afternoon in which he was told sensitive information for his own safety and for the safety of Americans. Within hours he was neck deep into one of his classic word salads when he proved Harry Reid and other Pentagon officials right. In what was the biggest faux pas of his entire political career, Trump accidentally revealed sensitive and classified information about the locations of secret military bases. Trump arrogantly spoke to an audience at a Colorado Springs rally today, when he said that the U.S. should not have to pay rent for its military base in Saudi Arabia. There’s just one problem with this. There isn’t supposed to be an American military base in Saudi Arabia. This revelation could and should mean huge consequences for Donald Trump, who has called for the arrest and indictment of Hillary Clinton for mishandling of classified emails. Trump is now complaining “we pay rent for our base to Saudi Arabia” — Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) July 29, 2016 According to the government, Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to have closed the American base in Saudi Arabia right after 9/11. If what Trump is saying is not just another of his made up facts, that means that a secret military base is now public. If there is now a US military base in Saudi, it is classified and mentioning it should have legal consequences. https://t.co/LgEeMXkV7M — Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) July 29, 2016 The consequences of Trump’s actions today are not yet, and may never be, made known to the public. However, you can be certain that the location of that base was classified for a reason, and now that protection has been compromised. @_DanMangan @yarotrof @Bencjacobs If he signed the secrecy agreement already as part of getting the briefing, he could be prosecuted. — Bradley P. Moss, Esq (@BradMossEsq) July 30, 2016 #TrumpForPrison2016 ~ http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/29/breaking-hours-after-first-intelligence-briefing-trump-likely-leaked-classified-secrets/ Sigh. | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
It's even mentioned in the first article. "according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment." If he succeeds, then it will be a massive success, otherwise it will fail hard like the articles claim. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote: I've always noted that people who vote to see the world burn have already done the calculation that they aren't likely to get burned themselves. I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
http://militarybases.com/riyadh-air-base-air-force-base-in-riyadh-saudi-arabia/ | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:56 MasterCynical wrote: Ive read those articles before, and they are all quite narrow minded. Trump's approach is to lower taxes and strangling regulations to spark economic growth to offset the loss in tax, and this isn't taken into account in those calculations. It's even mentioned in the first article. "according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment." If he succeeds, then it will be a massive success, otherwise it will fail hard like the articles claim. All the articles and all of the experts are narrow minded compared to someone with no experience who says something stupid every day of the week? Okay. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I'm currently deployed right now and believe I'm more likely to have to deploy again under Clinton than Trump. Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:56 MasterCynical wrote: Ive read those articles before, and they are all quite narrow minded. Trump's approach is to lower taxes and strangling regulations to spark economic growth to offset the loss in tax, and this isn't taken into account in those calculations. It's even mentioned in the first article. "according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment." If he succeeds, then it will be a massive success, otherwise it will fail hard like the articles claim. Lower taxes and looser regulations would be terrible. We already play pretty loose with regulations and compared to the world our taxes are low. It's just trickle down garbage that doesn't work. All it doeseems is give people at the top an even easier time then they already have. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 01 2016 08:00 Plansix wrote: Why do you assume every comment about voting for Trump is about you? You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21367 Posts
On August 01 2016 07:56 MasterCynical wrote: Ive read those articles before, and they are all quite narrow minded. Trump's approach is to lower taxes and strangling regulations to spark economic growth to offset the loss in tax, and this isn't taken into account in those calculations. It's even mentioned in the first article. "according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment." If he succeeds, then it will be a massive success, otherwise it will fail hard like the articles claim. "if only we let companies do what they want, they would create a lot more jobs". NO, just no. That is not how economics work. How often do you have to see companies pocket their profits before you understand that given a company another 100 thousand dollars does not mean that they make 100 thousand dollars worth of jobs, or even a dollars worth. It only means the company has another 100 thousand dollars in the profit column of their financial report. Trickle down economics is utterly fantasy, it does not exist. If you want to boost economics you give the middle-class more money to spend on goods so there is more demand for goods. Giving the money to the companies does nothing for the workers. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21367 Posts
On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. Are you ok with Trump ordering you to commit war crimes? Would you purposefully seek to kill women and children if ordered to do so by your commander in chief Donald Trump? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 01 2016 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You love to drop that anecdote about your brother having to deploy all the time as reason alone to support Clinton over Trump and ignorantly imply the people who would support Trump are those unaffected by his decisions. I'm someone who will be directly impacted by the decisions of the commander in chief and I trust Trump more than Clinton as my top boss, granted that isn't saying much, so I'm just telling you you're wrong. Except I wasn't talking about you. But keep thinking every Trump post is a shot at your decision. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 01 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote: Except I wasn't talking about you. But keep thinking every Trump post is a shot at your decision. Okay good conversation man | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 01 2016 08:10 Gorsameth wrote: Are you ok with Trump ordering you to commit war crimes? Would you purposefully seek to kill women and children if ordered to do so by your commander in chief Donald Trump? That's not how it works lol | ||
| ||
