Presidential Candidates Debate

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

What I don't understand is how/why so many people would consider that a negative.

Pretty much every possible profession out there, people would unanimously consider experience as vital to their ability to handle the job, but somehow when we get to (one of) the most important job(s) in the country, people think that less experience is better.  And no experience is best.

Actually the GOP used no experience against Obama in 08, the community organizer thing etc. When he was the candidate for change they were saying what the country needed was experience, and it wasn't just the McCain machine this was the talk amongst the republicans on the street as well.

 

[rkim291968]

The 1st debate moved the needle a few percentage points.  Given how the polls moved in the last two months, US voters are a fickle lot.  This gives DT a hope to recover from the 1st debate disaster.   After all, he can only improve from his 1st debate.   He can't do any worse.  

[Dave2512]

I'm going with he could do worse, a lot worse. He is a lunatic with no bottom to hit.

[rkim291968]

One of the main reasons for people supporting DT is that they can't stand Clinton.   I really, really hate Clinton but Trump makes Clinton looks like a mother Theresa.  He made me root for Clinton if that was even possible.  The first debate reinforced it.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

If a plumber was in business for 26 years and couldn't clear a clogged drain would you hire that plumber because they were experienced? 

That's an awful analogy.  She has been first lady (does that count as job experience?), senator (one of 100 making decisions), and Secretary of State (somebody recommending decisions to her boss).  But if you want to run with a plumbing analogy then let's do it accurately.

Her husband ran the company for 8 years and while he did, she may have had the opportunity to make suggestions to him, but she didn't actually work there.  Then after 8 years of that, she realized that she could probably be good at it, so she became an apprentice.  She's involved in some of the decisions, sure, but she's not making calls on her own.  She voted for putting the Johnson's new sewer lateral right next to that old oak tree, so she certainly can take some of the blame for the fallout that ensued.  She also seems to be more inclined to recommend more expensive pipes and fittings to customers, always from the same brand, and she is friends with somebody from that company, so there are questions there as well.  But, still, the buck does not (yet) stop with her.

Now the boss is retiring and she thinks she can be great at replacing him, and it has now come down to either her to run the company, or this other guy who is a broadway actor and whose sole experience with plumbing is that he's good at clogging toilets.

Now, who is the better choice to run that company?

 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Democrats seem to forget all the negative things Obama said about Clinton when they ran head to head and it seems the majority of you agreed that all of Hillary's experience wasn't important enough to nominate her over Obama (who had very little experience in comparison).

I actually have forgotten all of it (but only because I follow politics about the same as I follow the Olympics, yet with less enthusiasm) ... but what's that got to do with anything?  Obama isn't running.  If he was, he'd certainly get my vote, but my only choices here are Hillary or Trump (or Johnson or Stein), so those are the only comparisons worth making right now.

[Jeremie Boop]

7 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

One of the main reasons for people supporting DT is that they can't stand Clinton.   I really, really hate Clinton but Trump makes Clinton looks like a mother Theresa.  He made me root for Clinton if that was even possible.  The first debate reinforced it.

Interesting, I agree people are tending to vote against instead of for in this election. The young college student I golf with told me she really dislikes Clinton and wants Trump to win. BUT, she won't vote for Trump because she doesn't really like him much either, just would rather see him elected. While this is all hearsay and anecdotal, she did say that it's a running theme with people of her age that they aren't voting but prefer the idea of Trump over Clinton. She repeatedly referred to Hillary as a liar, and was rather vehement in her dislike for the woman.

 

Either way this goes, I firmly believe we are not getting a good person for President in this election and look towards the next election to hopefully produce a legitimate and viable candidate that will make a good President.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

That's an awful analogy.  She has been first lady (does that count as job experience?), senator (one of 100 making decisions), and Secretary of State (somebody recommending decisions to her boss).  But if you want to run with a plumbing analogy then let's do it accurately.

Her husband ran the company for 8 years and while he did, she may have had the opportunity to make suggestions to him, but she didn't actually work there.  Then after 8 years of that, she realized that she could probably be good at it, so she became an apprentice.  She's involved in some of the decisions, sure, but she's not making calls on her own.  She voted for putting the Johnson's new sewer lateral right next to that old oak tree, so she certainly can take some of the blame for the fallout that ensued.  She also seems to be more inclined to recommend more expensive pipes and fittings to customers, always from the same brand, and she is friends with somebody from that company, so there are questions there as well.  But, still, the buck does not (yet) stop with her.

Now the boss is retiring and she thinks she can be great at replacing him, and it has now come down to either her to run the company, or this other guy who is a broadway actor and whose sole experience with plumbing is that he's good at clogging toilets.

Now, who is the better choice to run that company?

I was with you until the bolded area, a more applicable comparison would be a guy that ran an accounting firm and had zero experience running a plumbing business or plumbing.  

You may not like Trump but he's built a lot of successful real estate properties, has proven to understand business and tax laws, including the loopholes.  

I don't get all the attention to his taxes, imo anyone that pays a penny more than they should is a chump.  I'm not talking about anything illegal or even questionable, but if you're not taking every legit deduction that's available to you, you're pissing money away.  

There are a lot of things to knock Trump for, but working the ridiculous tax laws and bankruptcy laws to his advantage isn't one of them.  

[phillyk]

29 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I was with you until the bolded area, a more applicable comparison would be a guy that ran an accounting firm and had zero experience running a plumbing business or plumbing.  

You may not like Trump but he's built a lot of successful real estate properties, has proven to understand business and tax laws, including the loopholes.  

I don't get all the attention to his taxes, imo anyone that pays a penny more than they should is a chump.  I'm not talking about anything illegal or even questionable, but if you're not taking every legit deduction that's available to you, you're pissing money away.  

There are a lot of things to knock Trump for, but working the ridiculous tax laws and bankruptcy laws to his advantage isn't one of them.  

Then I don't want to hear people complaining about people taking advantage of welfare, food stamps, unemployment, or similar (not speaking to you directly @newtogolf, this is just in general).

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

T

Now the boss is retiring and she thinks she can be great at replacing him, and it has now come down to either her to run the company, or this other guy who is a broadway actor and whose sole experience with plumbing is that he's good at clogging toilets.

Now, who is the better choice to run that company?

 

 

 

I had to laugh about this one.....

On a serious note though, I think the point is that Hillary has proven (with some opportunity) that she cannot plumb.  And while it is certainly possible (and more than likely probable) that DT can't plumb either, there is still a chance that he actually will be able to plumb just fine.

[CarlSpackler]

2 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Interesting, I agree people are tending to vote against instead of for in this election. The young college student I golf with told me she really dislikes Clinton and wants Trump to win. BUT, she won't vote for Trump because she doesn't really like him much either, just would rather see him elected. While this is all hearsay and anecdotal, she did say that it's a running theme with people of her age that they aren't voting but prefer the idea of Trump over Clinton. She repeatedly referred to Hillary as a liar, and was rather vehement in her dislike for the woman.

 

Either way this goes, I firmly believe we are not getting a good person for President in this election and look towards the next election to hopefully produce a legitimate and viable candidate that will make a good President.

This is why I am telling people to vote for me. I will provide federal assistance to golf courses to help them stay afloat. I will also make golf related expenses tax deductible. I will expand the First Tee program and make it mandatory for youngsters. I can't think of a better way to save our society. 

[rkim291968]

5 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

This is why I am telling people to vote for me. I will provide federal assistance to golf courses to help them stay afloat. I will also make golf related expenses tax deductible. I will expand the First Tee program and make it mandatory for youngsters. I can't think of a better way to save our society. 

You got my vote, sir!   No debate is needed (since this is a debate related thread).   What you stated above showed vision, courage, honesty, pragmatism, generosity, and all other virtues Clinton & Trump sorely lacks.   Vote for @CarlSpackler if you love America.   He will make golf great again, and will take America with it.   Hey, do you have a VP candidate already?

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, 14ledo81 said:

I had to laugh about this one.....

That's my goal most of the time.  So ...

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, phillyk said:

Then I don't want to hear people complaining about people taking advantage of welfare, food stamps, unemployment, or similar (not speaking to you directly @newtogolf, this is just in general).

I see this a bit differently.  When we pay taxes, it's money we earned that the government believes it's entitled to for their use at their discretion.  They write and approve the tax laws, we don't.  So if someone hires an outstanding accountant to ensure that they pay the right amount and not a penny more that's not fraud or illegal in any way.  

I'll also add for Hillary and all the liberal wealthy people she quotes that are willing to pay more taxes, why aren't they?  At any time these wealthy individuals can write a check as a gift to the IRS, they can also fire their accounts and file a simple tax return without claiming any deductions.  It's one thing to say you're willing to pay more, it's another to do it.  So Hillary, how much of a gift check can we put you and Bill down for to the IRS this year? 

When someone undeserving files a claim for welfare or food stamps they aren't making money, they aren't financially contributing to pay their fair share, instead they are asking the government and those that do work and pay taxes for a handout.  

If someone legitimately needs it then that's different than someone who's trying to game the system for their own personal gain, it's effectively stealing from taxpayers and if one "takes advantage" of the system they are stealing and likely committing fraud which is punishable by law.  

Unemployment is a different entity altogether because it's a form of insurance paid for by their former employers and except for government employees has no impact on tax payers.    

[Hacker James]

some of this reminds me of the lines in the movie The God Father.  "Frankie Pantangeli"

 

"Your father worked with Hyman Roth, Your father respected Hyman Roth, but your father never trusted Hyman Roth".

 

[14ledo81]

31 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I see this a bit differently.  When we pay taxes, it's money we earned that the government believes it's entitled to for their use at their discretion.  They write and approve the tax laws, we don't.  So if someone hires an outstanding accountant to ensure that they pay the right amount and not a penny more that's not fraud or illegal in any way.  

I'll also add for Hillary and all the liberal wealthy people she quotes that are willing to pay more taxes, why aren't they?  At any time these wealthy individuals can write a check as a gift to the IRS, they can also fire their accounts and file a simple tax return without claiming any deductions.  It's one thing to say you're willing to pay more, it's another to do it.  So Hillary, how much of a gift check can we put you and Bill down for to the IRS this year? 

When someone undeserving files a claim for welfare or food stamps they aren't making money, they aren't financially contributing to pay their fair share, instead they are asking the government and those that do work and pay taxes for a handout.  

If someone legitimately needs it then that's different than someone who's trying to game the system for their own personal gain, it's effectively stealing from taxpayers and if one "takes advantage" of the system they are stealing and likely committing fraud which is punishable by law.  

Unemployment is a different entity altogether because it's a form of insurance paid for by their former employers and except for government employees has no impact on tax payers.    

 

I think the difference is clear in this article here:

 

The Fundamental Difference DRAFT (title?)
There is much discussion regarding the vitriol and animosity in the current political discourse and how we should “tone down the rhetoric” or “conduct a more civilized dialog”. We are told that we should find common ground, look for what each side has in common, and work together towards creating a better country for all Americans.
These are noble words. They have admirable intentions. Unfortunately, reality is more complex.
While it is indeed a good idea to conduct political debate and discourse in a rational and respectful manner, the idea that we can find common ground, agreement, and consensus if only we try harder is, unfortunately, a fanciful notion. Although we might wish otherwise, the reality is that the gulf separating the two opposing political camps is simply too large. It cannot be realistically crossed, bridged, or reduced simply by using different words or means to conduct political arguments. Good intentions or not. And do not mistake political logrolling, the “I’ll give you this, if you give me that” type of deal as working together in a bipartisan manner. It is not.
At the very core, the reason for this vast gulf lies in a fundamental difference in personal philosophical belief. You can find this point where the two camps diverge with a little trip to the bottom of this chasm that separates both sides. To do this, you must trace the disagreements back to their roots and strip away the complexity. Then, after we have removed all but the foundation upon which ones views rest, we will come to the point where the two camps separate. It is the point where, unfortunately, once you take one direction, you’ll find little in common with those who have taken the other.
This point, at its most fundamental level, comes down to a person’s belief in the ownership of personal property: Do you believe what you have earned originates with you and is yours by right? Does it belong to you and therefore you have a right to keep it? Because you earned it through your own individual labors and efforts. Or do you believe that what you earn is not yours by right? That it belongs to society or the state which enabled you to earn the wealth and that society gets to decide what percentage of your earnings belong to you and what percentage belong to society?
How you answer this question and what your views are of where the ownership of a piece of property or wealth lies is not exclusively a matter of reason, logic, or mathematics. Nor can it be. It is a philosophical belief in ownership. You can believe that wealth originates with the individual who created or earned it and therefore belongs by right to that person or you can believe that some or all of the wealth created or earned by an individual belongs to society or the state. No amount of mathematical analysis or logic can prove you right or wrong. Either your earnings are yours of which you give a portion to society or they (your earnings) are society’s of which you are allowed to keep a portion. This might seem like a subtle distinction, but it is not.
The belief in the right to ownership of personal property has a long philosophical tradition which harks back to John Locke and others who argued for the possession of personal property and the right to earn and own ones possessions. Known as the Classical Liberals or Objectivists, this camp holds that you own your own life and it therefore follows that you own the products of your life and labors and can trade them in free exchange with others. And that, regardless of the intent, it is not just to take ones property from them without consent. E.g. It would not make me a good or just person if I offer to give all of your money to charity.
The opposition to this belief is fundamentally critical of this absolute ownership concept, and holds that it us not just for one to possess more than they can use and that the cost of defending property is higher than the value or returns from the property – therefore some or all of what one ‘earns’ belongs to the state or society which enabled it to be earned. They argue that it encourages individuals to generate wealth for their own personal benefit which may not coincide with the benefit of society as a whole.
How does this relate to today’s political environment? To see, we need to look at a few public figures that hold these differing views. Although most public figures will not come out and explicitly state their fundamental views on this topic, some will and that allows us to take a look at a few examples of this and see how much common ground we can find.
In a recent NYT opinion piece, A Tale of Two Moralities, January 13, 2010, Nobel laureate economist Dr. Paul Krugman heaps scorn on what he calls the “I earned it and I have the right to keep it crowd” and promises to spend a lot of time in future articles “pointing out [their] hypocrisy and logical [errors]…” Unlike many public figures, he is willing to come out and state where he stands on this fundamental philosophical divide. He clearly does not believe that earnings or property ‘belongs’ to the individual, but rather that it, or a portion thereof, belongs to some collective ‘us’ – the state or government. And he is willing to state this in unequivocal terms.
On the opposite side, we can find another economist,
George Mason University’s Dr. Bourdreaux, who in a
recent post on his blog explains his belief is that “If [a
person] A earns $100, every cent belongs to him.” This is
also very clearly and unequivocally stated. He goes on to
say that “If [the government] G takes some of A’s money
– ‘taxes’ A [then] that action is morally illegitimate…”
That is because he views the money as belonging to the
individual and that the government is taking it away from
them. And it is morally unjust and illegitimate for one
person or persons to take the belongings of another.
Here we can see that he is also willing to come out and
state his philosophical views on the fundamental
ownership of a piece of wealth and is clearly light-years
away from Dr. Krugman’s position – even on this very
basic and fundamental level. This is why there is very
little chance for consensus between these two viewpoints
- because they are founded on completely different
philosophical beliefs.
The difficulties rise, and the gulf widens, when we add
layers of complexity on top of these two very different
beliefs. For example, let’s consider the political hot
button issue of tax cuts. Because those in the “I earned it
and it’s mine” camp truly believe, at a very basic level,
that their earnings belong to them, then they view taxes
as the government taking their money away from them
and a tax cut as simply the government taking less.
Aside from Krugman, Bourdreaux, and some others, most
public figures - especially politicians - will not often come
out and state their beliefs directly. However, you can
easily see who holds this philosophical belief and falls
into this camp by the words they use. For example, they
would describe a tax cut as “An individual getting to keep
more of their money”, because they view the money as
belonging to the individual, not the government.
However, if you fall in the opposite camp, then you view
tax cuts as the government giving away society’s money
to people – and giving especially large amounts to rich
people. You would view it this way because the money
belongs to the government and not to the individual and
the government is giving it away.
You can again identify people who think this way by the
words they use because they would say things like; “Tax
cuts cost money” or “we can’t afford to spend money of
tax cuts” or “we can’t giveaway billions to rich people”.
And these would be natural and logical things for them to
say, given their philosophical belief. Consider this quote
regarding tax cuts from Dr. Krugman:
… [Republicans] are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million
to [rich people]…How can this kind of giveaway be justified…
Or this excerpt from a recent speech by President
Obama:
… They’re proposing about $4 trillion of tax cuts… millionaires
and billionaires who would get $100,000 [each]… it would end
up costing more than $700 billion… we’d have to borrow in
order to provide these tax cuts…
Notice that they speak of tax cuts as a giveaway or that
they cost money and that the government would have to
borrow to pay for this cost. Tax cuts are viewed as a cost
because they view the $700 billion (of tax cuts) as
belonging to the government. And that it is the
government’s money that they would be giving away in
the form of tax cuts – primarily to rich people.
But to the other side, these statements are completely
illogical and untenable - a tax cut cannot be referred to as
a cost because they hold that it’s not the government’s
money to begin with. Likewise the government cannot
giveaway or gift you something that is already yours by
right. These views stem from the belief that the money
they earn is theirs and no amount of rational or logical
discussion regarding the minute details of tax rates,
increases, cuts, or effects will change this. It is a
fundamental difference in philosophical beliefs.
Thus the two camps will not be able to agree on this
matter of tax cuts because they disagree on the most
basic tenant of the debate – who the ‘tax cut money’
belongs to. I wish flowery words and grand intentions
could change this, but the cold hard truth is that those
who believe that the ‘tax cut money’ belongs to
government or society feel strongly that the government
should not give it away to the rich – rather, they feel it is
more just and fair for the government to give it to the
poor, sick, unemployed, or those who need it more. As
such, they are not likely to find any common ground,
much less agreement with those who believe that the
‘tax cut money’ belongs by right to the individual who
earned it and therefore it is not a giveaway at all but
rather it is a return of the money to the rightful owner.
And taking money away from the rightful owner to give
to someone else is unjust and unfair.
This juxtaposition of views built on different beliefs
causes both groups recoil in moral indignation at the
views of the others… because they are seeing the other’s
viewpoints through their own philosophical prism.
This in turn leads to the irony that both camps can and do
claim to have logic, reason, rational thought, and morality
on their side. And both will be correct – within and
according to their philosophical belief of ownership. Then,
standing on their philosophical foundation and smug in
their superiority, each side will claim that they are right
and the other is wrong.

 

Edit:  Sorry for the way it cut and pasted.

Edited October 3, 2016 by 14ledo81
Apology for the format of the cut and paste

[Golfingdad]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

When someone undeserving ...    

This is where the difference arises.  You say that a poor person who takes advantage of a government program is "undeserving" but a rich person is just smart.  Why is there a difference?   I agree with @phillyk here because your views on the two seem to conflict with each other.

[14ledo81]

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This is where the difference arises.  You say that a poor person who takes advantage of a government program is "undeserving" but a rich person is just smart.  Why is there a difference?   I agree with @phillyk here because your views on the two seem to conflict with each other.

 

I realize the article I cut and pasted is long, but I would like to get your opinion of it.  And if you think it applies here.

[CarlSpackler]

1 hour ago, rkim291968 said:

You got my vote, sir!   No debate is needed (since this is a debate related thread).   What you stated above showed vision, courage, honesty, pragmatism, generosity, and all other virtues Clinton & Trump sorely lacks.   Vote for @CarlSpackler if you love America.   He will make golf great again, and will take America with it.   Hey, do you have a VP candidate already?

Not yet, but does it really matter. 

BTW - I also promise to kill ALL gophers and other varmints. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by CarlSpackler