|
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. |
On August 02 2016 23:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 23:05 ragz_gt wrote:
No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT. He's made so many other absurd claims and was serious about them (e.g., the wall, banning Muslims, etc.), it wouldn't even be remotely surprising to me if he was serious about wanting Russia to hack the Democrats.
Serious is a bad choice of word I guess, It's more that he wasn't being thoughtful about it.
|
On August 02 2016 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 17:31 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 17:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:22 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote:
Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it.
Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw. You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services. Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector. Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because? No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter. You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer. Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made. Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free. Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country. Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made.
The problem is the tax aversion in the US.
Every time every politician promises to reduce taxes and that money has to come from somewhere. So it gets taken out of infrastructure because no one complains about that.
Taxes exist to let the government pay for things like roads, water works and public schools, you cant cut taxes without giving up something.
|
It's really a bit of a problem that partisanship, bad faith and the abysmal lack of education of a big part of the republican base are basically making a serious political discussion impossible.
Trump's campaign which is exclusively centered on hysteria, conspiracy theories and burlesque demonization of Hillary is a a new height in the dumbing down of american politics, but the problem has been growing for decades.
A democracy doesn't function when rational discussion is undermined by systematic anti-intellectualism and exploittation of people's ignorance.
I remember Mc Cain saying "and what would be the problem if Obama was muslim?" to one of his biggoted and ignorant supporter. That time seems far away..
|
|
|
On August 02 2016 23:28 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 23:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2016 23:05 ragz_gt wrote:
No, no one actually think Trump was serious about calling for Russian hacking. It's not exactly sarcastic either, it's just being a dumb arse. Which is fine, of course, unless you are running for THE PRESIDENT. He's made so many other absurd claims and was serious about them (e.g., the wall, banning Muslims, etc.), it wouldn't even be remotely surprising to me if he was serious about wanting Russia to hack the Democrats. Serious is a bad choice of word I guess, It's more that he wasn't being thoughtful about it.
That sounds like a semantics cop-out to me, honestly. He's said dozens of times that he really, truly wants to build a wall at our Mexican border and he really, truly wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States. I think they're idiotic propositions, but I don't doubt the sincerity of his beliefs. He's really ignorant, but he really wants to implement these things... both of which are scary. I think he's serious about the Russian hacking issue too.
|
On August 02 2016 23:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:31 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 17:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:22 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote:
Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it.
Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw. You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services. Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector. Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because? No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter. You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer. Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made. Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free. Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country. Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made. So take a couple hundred billion from the Military, tax wall st trades and legalize marijuana allowing the states to collect tax on sales and so forth. The poorest in the country such as Mississippi would find an extra hundred million or so to fix their shit systems perhaps.
Please don't tax stock trades. It's a really bad idea.
|
I've read that trump suggests the election is going to be rigged in Hillaries favor. I can foresee a big fight when Hillary wins and all those lunatics manipulated by Trump see it as proof of a corrupt system and go into gorilla warfare.
|
A robust capital gains tax is not a really bad idea....
|
I thought it was self evident that Trump had some serious mental problems. The dude has trouble finishing a sentence before being driven to a completely different thought. He has the attention span of a gold fish. Even worse, he goes into a rage over even the most benign, or even perceived, insults. It is clearly a lot more than narcissism. I have no doubt he would be diagnosed as sick by most Psychiatrists, though that of course is only my personal guess.
And I expect it will get worse before it gets better...
|
Retiring Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) on Tuesday announced he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November because Donald Trump is “unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”
The three-term congressman, who represents New York’s 22nd Congressional District, is the first Republican member of Congress to announce he will vote for the former secretary of state. He previously said he could never support the GOP nominee, putting him among several conservative and establishment holdouts known as the #NeverTrump movement.
Trump’s repeated Islamophobic attacks on the parents of a slain American war hero who appeared at the Democratic convention last week was the deciding factor.
“In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line?” Hanna asked in an article that the news outlet Syracuse.com published Tuesday. “I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he’s proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”
Though he noted he did not agree with Clinton on every issue, the congressman cited education and women’s health care as two topics that the two agreed on.
“I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate,” he wrote. “Our response to the public’s anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.”
Hanna may not be the last high-ranking Republican official to cross party lines come November. Sally Bradshaw, who was a long-time adviser to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), announced last week that she was leaving the GOP ― and may even vote for Clinton if the race in Florida is close. One of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), also said it was possible she may vote for Clinton. Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under former president George W. Bush, announced he would vote for Clinton last month.
Source
|
On August 02 2016 23:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 23:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 02 2016 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:31 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 17:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:22 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote:
Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it.
Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw. You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services. Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector. Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because? No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter. You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer. Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made. Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free. Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country. Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made. So take a couple hundred billion from the Military, tax wall st trades and legalize marijuana allowing the states to collect tax on sales and so forth. The poorest in the country such as Mississippi would find an extra hundred million or so to fix their shit systems perhaps. Please don't tax stock trades. It's a really bad idea.
Do you mind giving a brief explanation why? It seems like a good way to target the people who have the ability to buy stock. I and others I know have only pondered the idea of stock because we've got plenty of money and just wanna start throwing it at long term shit.
|
On August 02 2016 23:38 RoomOfMush wrote:
I've read that trump suggests the election is going to be rigged in Hillaries favor. I can foresee a big fight when Hillary wins and all those lunatics manipulated by Trump see it as proof of a corrupt system and go into gorilla warfare.
Does it involve banana's? please let it involve banana's.
Considering Texans have already expressed fear over a military invasion when the US army did training exercises in the state, I can't see it getting much worse then it already is.
|
On August 02 2016 23:40 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought it was self evident that Trump had some serious mental problems. The dude has trouble finishing a sentence before being driven to a completely different thought. He has the attention span of a gold fish. Even worse, he goes into a rage over even the most benign, or even perceived, insults. It is clearly a lot more than narcissism. I have no doubt he would be diagnosed as sick by most Psychiatrists, though that of course is only my personal guess.
And I expect it will get worse before it gets better...
To be fair most of the human race gets diagnosed as sick by Psychiatrists so... doesn't mean much.
|
On August 02 2016 23:38 RoomOfMush wrote:
I've read that trump suggests the election is going to be rigged in Hillaries favor. I can foresee a big fight when Hillary wins and all those lunatics manipulated by Trump see it as proof of a corrupt system and go into gorilla warfare.
Yup, he's already setting up for the "If I lose it's because Hillary cheated/ the system is rigged". The Democratic primary scandal with Hillary vs. Bernie will unfortunately fuel that fire too.
|
Just when it seems that Donald Trump could not display more ignorance and bad judgment or less of a moral compass, he comes up with another ignominy or two. This weekend he denigrated the parents of a fallen American military hero and suggested that if elected he might recognize Russia’s claims to Ukraine and end sanctions.
Mr. Trump’s divisive views helped him capture the Republican presidential nomination. And even as he creates a political whirlwind with each utterance, leading members of his own party haven’t the spine to rescind their support. Sure, some have come out with strong criticisms, but none have gone far enough. Repudiation of his candidacy is the only principled response.
On Sunday on ABC, Mr. Trump’s comments on Ukraine demonstrated even less knowledge about world affairs than suspected. His remarks also reinforced suspicions that he is sympathetic toward Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian, anti-Western president.
Mr. Trump seemed confused about Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its efforts to wrest other parts of the country from Ukraine’s control. “He’s not going into Ukraine, O.K., just so you understand,” Mr. Trump said, apparently unaware that Mr. Putin sent troops there two years ago and that the international community still considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. Russian troops have been seen, and sometimes killed, in Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine where an insurgency is fighting the Ukrainian government.
The United States and the European Union have condemned the land grab, which is at odds with post-Cold War commitments, and imposed sanctions that Mr. Putin is desperate to have lifted. Mr. Trump’s willingness to support Mr. Putin’s claim on Crimea and other parts of Ukraine, coupled with his lack of commitment to NATO, is good reason for Europe to fear for the future of the alliance if he becomes president.
Source
|
On August 02 2016 23:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 23:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 02 2016 23:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 02 2016 23:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:31 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 17:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 02 2016 17:22 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2016 11:38 GoTuNk! wrote:
Free college is the worse idea ever. For starters there is no free anything, someone else is paying for it.
Secondly, it's just another step in the way to socialism.
All it does is create even more useless degrees and keep raising the prices of education because of the endless demand created by the state.
Surely the solution then will become that the mighty state will have to regulate courses available/and or prices. Later, this will not seem enough, and the government will acquire the universities all together.
Edit: This is how they are ruining my country atm, btw. You didn't make an argument here. Firstly, nobody thinks that free means literally provided by God free of charge, they mean free at the point of delivery. Obviously it'd be paid for by taxes, people who want free college know that what they want is higher taxes to fund government provided college. Surely you're not stupid enough to think everyone believes that government services and government taxes have no relationship and that you're blowing our minds by pointing out that taxes pay for services. Secondly, we like socialism, that's not a bad thing, socialism has been working pretty fucking well for us so far. You can't just say "but socialism!" and end the argument there when the majority of the richest and most successful countries in the world, including the United States, have large parts of their economy within the public sector. Roads are currently underfunded, infrastructure is currently underfunded, we can barely get enough taxes to keep our cities from falling into despair--and somehow an expensive and optional service will be affordable... just because? No matter what you say actual taxes is, you need to be collecting the taxes for it to matter. You're assuming for some reason that the publicly funded education won't eat into the money currently being thrown at the private system. It's a bad assumption. Take the British NHS for example. It costs about $2,400 per person in the UK. If you were to propose an increase of taxes of $2,400 per person in the US for government healthcare it'd probably get rejected. And yet the US already spends $10,000 per person on healthcare. What you'd actually be offering would be a $7,600 reduction in expenditure and while taxes may go up there would be an increase in paychecks as private insurance benefits were phased out for their cash equivalents, more than offsetting the taxes. The gross inefficiency of the private system means that the replacement, even if funded through taxes, actually makes people richer. Also "but my roads" is not a viable counterargument unless you're actually suggesting we do something about the roads. And we should. But there is money for both. The United States is not a poor country. If you're really upset about those roads there are cuts elsewhere that can be made. Roads are not the only thing underfunded in this country. There's a lot of shit that are currently underfunded. They are underfunded because people actively and successfully fight back against expenditures all the time. The stuff we do spend a lot on (military for example) are things that can be career ending for politicians to suggest we cut. Wherein lies the problem in the US--we do not even pay for the things we have right now, let alone the things people keep asking for to be free. Roads was just one example--most of america's infrastructure has the same issues. The Flint crisis did not happen in a vacuum. The levees issue during Katrina did not happen in a vacuum, underfunded public schools did not happen in a vacuum, the US has a lot of programs that needs a tonne more money and the more you strain the system with massive free programs the more likely you are to break the rest of the country. Is it doable? Sure, but sacrifices will have to be made. So take a couple hundred billion from the Military, tax wall st trades and legalize marijuana allowing the states to collect tax on sales and so forth. The poorest in the country such as Mississippi would find an extra hundred million or so to fix their shit systems perhaps. Please don't tax stock trades. It's a really bad idea. Do you mean giving a brief explanation why? It seems like a good way to target the people who have the ability to buy stock. I and others I know have only pondered the idea of stock because we've got plenty of money and just wanna start throwing it at long term shit.
See what happened in Sweden. The impact pretty much obliterated the Swedish exchanges. When implemented, market just says lolnope and moves to a country that doesn't have a FTT.
People have a harder time making trades because it's more expensive to do so. Liquidity is reduced. It increases risk while reducing returns. More sophisticated traders actually are impacted less because they have access to more complex securities, though they likely need to mess with derivatives more to try and boost returns. Derivatives are a messy business, and overleveraging + derivatives are what caused the market crash - so ironically a FTT would cause more problems there.
Simpler investors get hit harder. Index/ mutual funds end up taking a x% haircut - they still rebalance periodically, and each time they do they pay the tax. That kills Vanguard, etc. So you have to invest directly into long term equities to minimize the impact of the tax, which is OK if you're a fairly savvy guy who can do research and hold long term. For the regular guy though, you're taking on much higher risk by investing in equities instead of an index.
I'm all for incentivizing long term investments. I also think that the capital gains being taxed at a lower rate is dumb (though given a few years it'll be beneficial to me). FTT is a terribad idea though.
|
Just look at the media,its completely ridiculous,disgusting tbh.
Emailx2 don't get attention at all, and everything trump says is highlighted.
Usa is no democracy.
If what trump says is so bad,then let the people be the judge like supposed to be with an election.
Don't spoon fed it via the media. Its a disgrace.
Trump should just step out now,this is not a fair fight at all.
Bernie bailed, so why cant trump lol.
|
On August 03 2016 00:02 pmh wrote:
Just look at the media,its completely ridiculous.
Emailx2 don't get attention at all, and everything trump says is highlighted.
Usa is no democracy.
You really don't think that the e-mail scandals got any attention???
|
On August 02 2016 23:40 On_Slaught wrote:
I thought it was self evident that Trump had some serious mental problems. The dude has trouble finishing a sentence before being driven to a completely different thought. He has the attention span of a gold fish. Even worse, he goes into a rage over even the most benign, or even perceived, insults. It is clearly a lot more than narcissism. I have no doubt he would be diagnosed as sick by most Psychiatrists, though that of course is only my personal guess.
And I expect it will get worse before it gets better...
Well, if someone who has "serious mental problems" is able to be one of the two leading candidates for presidency of the #1 world power, there's a clear issue about the system
|
Eric Trump clarified his father’s previous remarks that if Ivanka Trump was facing sexual harassment at work she would leave the company or even her career field, saying that his sister wouldn’t “let” herself be harassed in the first place.
In an interview on CBS News Tuesday, hosts asked him about the elder Trump's defense of ex-Fox News boss Roger Ailes, who has been accused of sexual harassment and is currently facing a lawsuit from fired Fox host Gretchen Carlson. Trump went on to say that his father’s comments were misunderstood.
“There’s no question that it should be addressed and be addressed strongly,” he said.
“Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman,” he said. "She wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it. And by the way, you should certainly take it up with human resources. And I think she definitely would, as a strong person. At the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to it.”
Pressed about recent allegations of sexual harassment against ex-Fox News boss Roger Ailes, Donald Trump said in an interview with USA Today published Monday that if someone treated his daughter the way Ailes was accused of treating women, he'd encourage her to get a new job.
When previously asked about the swirling accusations that Ailes had a history of harassing female employees, Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd that he didn't believe the allegations and that the women who made such claims had said great things about Ailes.
But when USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers asked him to expand on those comments, Trump claimed to be unaware that there were multiple women accusing Ailes of sexual harassment, not just fired anchor Gretchen Carlson, who filed a lawsuit against him in July.
When Powers asked how Trump would feel if his daughter, Ivanka Trump, had been subjected to the same behavior Ailes was accused of, Trump said he'd put the onus on her to leave the company or even the field in which she was working.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
