US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5607

On October 17 2016 03:31 RealityIsKing wrote:


I've studied financial accounting, market economy, and environmental economy.

No, totally banning companies from investing other countries is of course extreme and nobody here is assuming that except for those that want to put words into other people's mouth instead of being calm mannered and put egos aside.

But taxing more employers will most certainly make them look at foreign countries to spent their money rather than investing domestically.

On October 17 2016 03:33 oBlade wrote:

Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.

It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.

We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.

On October 17 2016 03:37 zlefin wrote:

and how have trump's plans been graded by economists? What are the economists's opinions of trump's plans?
Also, what is your response to the points about trickle-down economics already having been tried?

On October 17 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:

Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.

Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"

On October 17 2016 03:54 oBlade wrote:

Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.

On October 17 2016 02:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:



I believe that if he wins as egocentric as he is he will try to be the best president ever he won't settle for less, even with his lack of understanding of politics he can hire people to do the job for him.

On October 17 2016 03:32 plasmidghost wrote:
I've got a bad feeling that regardless of who wins the election, there's going to be riots

No one knows how to handle what might be about to hit on Nov. 9.

Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.

And, they say, only Republican leaders who speak up will have any chance of stopping it.

"Polls close, but can you believe I lost large numbers of women voters based on made up events THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Media rigging election!" Trump tweeted Sunday morning in response to the latest round of numbers showing him behind.

President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their top aides, along with leaders on Capitol Hill, worry about the preview Trump is providing in this final month, part kamikaze mission to take down Clinton, part temper tantrum by a man who has never been embarrassed on either this scale or spotlight.

They worry about how his egged-on followers might respond, and the violence — perhaps against Muslims, Latinos or any of the many other groups he has targeted in his campaign rhetoric — that might follow.

“People do dangerous things when dangerous leaders foment deep resentment,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

Even after the election, many Democrats and Republicans fear, Trump could keep showing up at rallies. He’s all but certain to keep up his near-constant claim of a “rigged election” on Twitter and in friendly news interviews, casting doubts and stoking a toxicity that, at least as of now, relatively few in his party have explicitly rejected.

A measure of where things stand already: Asked Saturday at a Trump rally in New Hampshire whether there could be an armed rebellion if Clinton wins, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster at first pegged the chances of it only at “highly unlikely.”

“There's going to be a rebellion, yeah. Everybody's tired of the system,” said Fred Steadman, a 57-year-old semi-retired man who was at Trump’s Saturday night rally in New Jersey, sure already that the election is rigged.

If Clinton does win, most agree that the immediate burden will likely fall on Republican leaders — particularly House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — to quickly and vocally insist on the legitimacy of her election.

If you thought Congress was done probing Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah, has some news for you.

The Republican chair of the House Oversight committee told Fox News that new evidence turned over by the FBI pointed to a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the FBI and the State Department and that was grounds for at least "four new hearings" after Congress comes back from recess.

"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Chaffetz said.

The allegations emerge after the FBI gave lawmakers a third tranche of documents related to their investigation into Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. Those documents have not been made public, but some lawmakers have been given access and Chaffetz said he was briefed on the matter.

According to Fox News, State Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy may have asked an FBI official to change the classification of an email in exchange for space at foreign postings for extra FBI agents.

In a statement, the FBI tells a different story. They say all of this happened before the FBI started investigating Clinton. The agency says a State Department official asked the FBI to give an email a second look. The official wanted the FBI to make sure it was supposed to be classified and if it wasn't, the State Department official wanted to know whether the email could still be protected from public disclosure.

The FBI said that one of its agents, who was not involved in the Clinton investigation, had been trying to get in touch with the State Department official on another matter, so he took the opportunity to talk to him.

"The FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad," the FBI said in a statement.

After the conversation, the FBI decided that the email should remain classified at the Secret level.

"The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today," the FBI said. "Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."

The third batch of emails could be made public soon. According to Fox, they include interviews with State Department officials about the possibility of a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

On October 17 2016 03:45 RealityIsKing wrote:


I don't think that by reducing taxes from employers alone is enough to make trickled economy work.

You need to make sure that companies are paying legal taxes and not hiding their money and make sure that the law does not allow colluded companies allying themselves in price fixing. The system have to be competitive.

And what Hillary purposes alone is not exactly feasible either. It requires government to actually utilizes the tax money gained from employers into good use and not pocket the money themselves.

But I like the first one better because it promotes the concept of people being responsible by themselves instead of being dependent on the government.

On October 17 2016 02:46 Slaughter wrote:


This this point, some people are so riled up that even if he were to concede gracefully some won't accept it.

On October 17 2016 04:40 Slaughter wrote:



Apparently Jason Chaffetz hasn't had enough of making a huge fool out of himself. Seriously is going after Clinton the only thing he does?

On October 17 2016 04:42 TheYango wrote:

I think he will try harder to put America first than Hillary. But I think his lack of experience and how prone he is to irrationality means that the outcome won't necessarily be better for America. And I care more about the likely result more than I care about who tries harder.

On October 17 2016 03:15 RealityIsKing wrote:
I still think that Trump will probably put America first more than Hillary.

On October 17 2016 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:

So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.

How enlightening.

And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???