Presidential Candidates Debate

[Chilli Dipper]

44 minutes ago, Hacker James said:

Before I would accept that wealthy persons pay the proverbial "shit load" of taxes, which may or may not be factual, I would need to see verifiable, unbiased, data. Surely, the amounts could be fairly large, but to what percentage of their gross income? Also, consider the fact that there are many forms of tax reduction benefits available to the wealthy owing to the sources of their income that are just not available to persons of modest income. The tax deduction, loop-holes if you will, greatly reduce these taxes. Then there is the honesty factor. What gets reported? It is very easy to hide taxable income, most of which is sheltered in the first place. In Trump's case, he even "admitted", that he considered it being "smart" or "good business" which in of itself, indicates (to me), that he is "Not" paying his fair share, either as a percentage or relatively.  The statement that the upper 2% pay 80% of the tax is subject to speculation and would need to be fact-checked. Then the question arises, by whom?  Bottom line, he needs to break open the books and even then we may never really learn anything of substance.  One thing that came out from the debate and in the context of my original post is that it now appears that Clinton is the Master Baiter word play not-with-standing.

Mitt Romney was slow in releasing his tax returns in 2012; when he did release them, it revealed nothing of interest, and the rumors about what he was hiding quickly fell by the wayside. In reality, the worst thing that could happen to Donald Trump in releasing his tax returns now is that they would confirm what people already assume, based on the extensive investigative reporting on his financials, his foundation, and his business connections. He doesn't have anything to lose; he's just too vain to capitulate.

[Gunther]

It wasn't a great performance and Clinton exceeded expectations but she was treated with kid gloves by Holt, who didn't do a terrible job, just a bit cowardly with an underlying fear of how the cocktail party circuit ravaged Lauer and Fallon recently.

No questions on Benghazi, emails, State Department corruption or the Foundation.  Yet he pounded Trump on every insignificant thing he's said over the past 5 years.  

S'ok, the Republican always gets this kind of treatment.  As someone else mentioned, this didn't hurt him, although I think it may have helped Clinton, especially in terms of the health concerns some may have had about her.

Remember, Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the 1st debate in 2012, to no lasting effect.  I'd give the edge to Clinton last night, contrary to most polling, but Trump will learn from it and his performances will improve in each of the next two.  I still firmly believe he will be the next president.

[baller7345]

16 minutes ago, Gunther said:

No questions on Benghazi, emails, State Department corruption or the Foundation.  Yet he pounded Trump on every insignificant thing he's said over the past 5 years.  

They did bring up the emails after trump mentioned them.  It didn't really go anywhere, but it was mentioned.

 

LESTER HOLT

He also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that?

HILLARY CLINTON

I do. You know, I made my mistake using a private e-mail.

DONALD TRUMP

That's for sure.

HILLARY CLINTON

And if I had to do it over again I would obviously do it differently. But I'm not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake and I take responsibility for that.

LESTER HOLT

Mr. Trump?

DONALD TRUMP

That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the fifth so they are not prosecuted,  when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it is this -- really thinks it is disgraceful also.

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

The "horses mouth" is a common phrase and I only added "racist" because he has clearly demonstrated over the course of the last year that he is one.

Your grammar was poor, as I said. I know what the "horse's mouth" is.

I disagree that he's clearly demonstrated he's a racist. Has Hillary clearly demonstrated that she's a crook?

And I'm not voting for either of them, so no, this isn't coming from a pro-Trump perspective.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

And again, responding to you saying "I don't understand why people say that" ... Philly said it because Trump said it.  He didn't make anything up.

I know Trump said "that makes him smart" in response to Hillary saying he didn't pay any federal income taxes. He didn't say directly that he didn't pay any federal income taxes last year, did he? I hadn't heard that. And if he did… there's clearly going to be more to it than that. Did his businesses operate at a loss? Did he pay no taxes of any kind? This kind of crap is what I hate about politics. It's sound bite-level political bull, and it's as shallow as it gets.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump paid more to the government in 2015 than just about all of the active members of this thread combined.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Also, what does it say to you that every person alive who knows what the job entails agrees unanimously that Trump does not have what it takes to succeed in it?

That presupposes that they did it well and thus know what it takes, does it not?

Granted, I'm even inclined to give that significant weight as well, but at the end of the day, it is possible that Trump could be the BEST possible POTUS because he isn't like every other politician that came before him. You can't deny the logic of that.

Perhaps POTUS needs a shakeup. Perhaps Trump is the Fosbury Flopper of U.S. politics. Or the Pro V1 to the balata. A game-changer.

Highly unlikely. But possible.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

@iacasIs shitload a technical term? Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes, that's because they earn most of the money. Like Trump says, he works very hard to pay as little tax as possible. That's fine, we all would. However, it's clear that he believes that releasing his tax returns will reveal data that will hurt his standing among his base or among undecided voters. But not releasing them is it's own problem. It's a calculated decision, and one that could be a deciding factor in the race.

I could understand how he feels that releasing his income tax data might hurt him more than it would help.

Some would be pissed that he makes as much as he does, and others would be pissed that he didn't make as much as he lead them to believe he makes.

I've seen that sort of thing happen. We all probably have… there's a reason a lot of companies forbid employees from sharing their salary or whatever. Knowledge of that type pisses people off.

And of those who would "understand" DT's tax forms, you're talking about a small percentage of people. Everyone else would look at it and say "well, why's he moving money into this account?" or "why didn't he have to pay taxes on these $100M condos?" or whatever. I doubt even he understands it all, but his accountants probably do.

I could see releasing his personal taxes as a big negative.

What about the Clinton crap where they fired the travel staff and hired her cronies?

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

Before I would accept that wealthy persons pay the proverbial "shit load" of taxes, which may or may not be factual, I would need to see verifiable, unbiased, data.

You probably wouldn't understand the data even if you got to look at it.

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

Surely, the amounts could be fairly large, but to what percentage of their gross income?

Gross income is not the way you look at these kinds of things. I have a gross income… and I also have actual, legitimate business expenses. I pay less as a percentage of my gross income than someone with a salary of my annual gross income… because they aren't deducting expenses. They're not furnishing their own office supplies.

Gross income is a horrible way to gauge how much taxes anyone or anything should pay.

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

Also, consider the fact that there are many forms of tax reduction benefits available to the wealthy owing to the sources of their income that are just not available to persons of modest income. The tax deduction, loop-holes if you will, greatly reduce these taxes.

This is the kind of stuff where people get it wrong.

As I understand it, yeah, wealthy people can get tax breaks for doing certain things… like donating a few million dollars to charity. Or funding a business. Or whatever.

But tax breaks are typically one of two types:

1. You pay more to something else but less on your taxes.
2. You defer when something counts as income and pay taxes on it later.

Examples of #1 include charitable giving (donate $10M and you get a $2M tax break… but you're still out an extra $8M) and funding a business (or operating a business at a loss). If DT earns $10M but spends $40M on a certain business, that $30M difference is still taxed… it just might be taxed on the individuals or services or goods that add up to $40M.

You have to work really hard to overcome that stuff. Good luck finding a guy who actually earns - in his personal account and not leaving to pay his employees or whatever - $100M who gives less as a percentage than you do, or your neighbor does.

 

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

In Trump's case, he even "admitted", that he considered it being "smart" or "good business" which in of itself, indicates (to me), that he is "Not" paying his fair share, either as a percentage or relatively.

That doesn't indicate it to me. I think it indicates it to you because you're operating with a pre-conceived bias.

Do you claim deductions? Do you claim dependents? Or do you just look at your basic salary, multiply it by 0.28, and pay that much each year?

I'm guessing you do not. I'm guessing you too try to be "smart" about it.

22 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'd give the edge to Clinton last night, contrary to most polling, but Trump will learn from it and his performances will improve in each of the next two.  I still firmly believe he will be the next president.

Huh?

Everything I've seen says Clinton clearly "won" the debate.

[nevets88]

This is tangentially related, today is voter registration day. If you're not registered, moved or whatever, register/update using the link below. 

http://nationalvoterregistrationday.org/register-to-vote/?source=nvrd-topnav

[Elmer]

38 minutes ago, Gunther said:

 

No questions on Benghazi, emails, State Department corruption or the Foundation.  Yet he pounded Trump on every insignificant thing he's said over the past 5 years.  

S'ok, the Republican always gets this kind of treatment.  As someone else mentioned, this didn't hurt him, although I think it may have helped Clinton, especially in terms of the health concerns some may have had about her.

 

She addressed the email issue, which was raised by DT.
What question could have been asked on the topic of Benghazi, that has not already been asked & answered in congressional testimony?

Trump was questioned on what he says because it is never clear, it never matches his previous answer and it never makes sense.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/26/13067798/trump-clinton-first-debate

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Trump was questioned on what he says because it is never clear, it never matches his previous answer and it never makes sense.

That's a good example of the kind of hyperbole that does nothing but show existing biases.

I didn't watch the debate, but I'm certain I could many, many sentences he said that "make sense." You might not agree with them, but you'd be able to parse them, and they'd "make sense" even if you thought what they were saying was impractical, or wrong, or whatever…

Ditto the other "never" things you said.

Don't use the words "never" or "always." It usually makes you look dumb.

It's a bad argument.

[chspeed]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

I didn't watch the debate,

No offense, but in my opinion this makes you unprepared to discuss it.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

No offense, but in my opinion this makes you unprepared to discuss it.

I watched a few minutes, but by and large, I'm not discussing the debate.

I'm discussing things related to the candidates that I don't have to have seen the debate to discuss.

The debate is still saved on the DVR, too, so I could easily find things that "make sense." That part is still accurate/true.

[DrvFrShow]

I watched the entire debate. I didn't give my analysis last night because I had a headache, but here it is.

As much as I didn't want to see it, Hillary kicked his ass. If this was a football game, Trump came out and scored the first touchdown. He actually had Hillary back on her heels for about 20 minutes. Then she began wearing him down, getting him angry. In the last half hour, he looked like a little boy who just got spanked. He was caving on practically everything. He even caved on gun control.

Trump said "I have the backing of the NRA" and then went on to say we need to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys including those who are on the no-fly lists and all that crap, stuff which is done without due process of law. Stop and frisk? Is he going to stop and frisk everyone? That violates the 4th amendment. Papers please.

Trump proved to me that he does not understand the United States Constitution. He's probably never read the thing. I know Clinton read it, but doesn't seem to care about it.

The government seems to have redefined due process as something that's done behind closed doors by a bunch of bureaucrats because those lists like the "terrorist watch list" and "no-fly list" are secret lists and there is no way to find out if you're on them. And there's a very expensive process to get off them. It's like the forfeiture laws that are used with the war on drugs where they can seize property. That started under Reagan. It's getting abused by police, by TSA, etc., if you're carrying cash. Don't tell police how much cash you're carrying if you get stopped for speeding if they ask you. The government wants you to use credit cards so they can keep track of your purchases. Ted Kennedy was on the No-Fly List FFS. Of course no one addressed the possible abuse of these lists either and they will get abused.

Trump had no idea about foreign policy, or cyberwarfare. FFS I know more about that stuff than he does. He's a buffoon. He looked like he was winging it. He didn't prepare at all for the debate because if he did he would have had answers. He has no idea about nuclear weapons use and Mutually Assured Destruction and the First Strike Doctrine. He didn't know what it was. 

So 1) I don't want Hillary Clinton to be president. 2) I definitely do not want Donald Trump to be president. 3) I will be casting a protest vote for Gary Johnson even though he too is an idiot - at least he has no chance of winning.

I blame the Mainstream Media for creating the Trump monster as the GOP candidate. They thought it was funny to cover him. It was good entertainment and they had good ratings. They gave him $ billions in free coverage. Cruz was an idiot. At least Kasich was intelligent - why didn't they give him more coverage? Oh he was "boring." "Knock the crap out of him. I'll pay your legal bills." - that made better ratings.

And I'm ready for four years of Clinton II. Damn, we can do better than this, people.

 

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's a good example of the kind of hyperbole that does nothing but show existing biases.

I didn't watch the debate, but I'm certain I could many, many sentences he said that "make sense." You might not agree with them, but you'd be able to parse them, and they'd "make sense" even if you thought what they were saying was impractical, or wrong, or whatever…

Ditto the other "never" things you said.

Don't use the words "never" or "always." It usually makes you look dumb.

It's a bad argument.

It's never always bad argument!

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Huh?

Everything I've seen says Clinton clearly "won" the debate.

The pundits perhaps but most snap polling gave Trump the W.  

[Chilli Dipper]

13 minutes ago, Gunther said:

The pundits perhaps but most snap polling gave Trump the W.  

I'll take a wild guess: those were open online polls that were invaded by trolls.

[Gunther]

2 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I'll take a wild guess: those were open online polls that were invaded by trolls.

Can't speak to the veracity of the polls, only substantiating my statement earlier which was questioned.

[newtogolf]

Trump did not win, he won the first 20 minutes, after that he was on his heels, playing defense and counter punching.  The comments Hillary made about the potential reasons he wasn't releasing his tax returns hit him hard and he never recovered.  

Those that are claiming a victory for Trump are doing so based on the fact this was his first real Presidential debate and Hillary's 8th and the fact that he held his own (but didn't win) was in itself a victory.  It's like telling a minor league baseball team that lost 9-1 to a major league team that they won because they didn't get shut out. 

Obama lost his first debate to Kerry much worse than Trump lost last night.  We'll find out if Trump can learn from his mistakes and improve like Obama did in the 2nd debate.  

Trump needs to hit her harder on having been a part of the problem for over 26 years and having been unable to solve problems she now claims she can solve if elected.  He needs to press harder on her e-mail server, poor handling of classified information and her questionable practices as SoS while raising money for the Clinton Foundation.  I was shocked that he didn't push back on those issues more when she attacked him personally. 

He also needs to release his tax documents as her speculations regarding the reasons he's not releasing them did a lot of damage.     

[jkelley9]

I watched an hour and 10 mins of the debate. Not sure how much longer it lasted past that.

All I can say is, as a 28-year old chemical engineer, married (wife works full time as a teacher), wanting to have kids soon... I'm scared to death. 4 years ago I was 24 and getting into my first big boy job, 4 years before that I literally went 9 months of my life without having 3 digits in my bank account longer than a WEEK while paying my way through Georgia Tech and living in the slums of Atlanta @ $276 per month. We've worked our butts off and are trying to move forward.

My wife and I are making very good money. But we're also working our butts off. We paid an EFFECTIVE TAX RATE of nearly 26% last year. I'm tired of the rich loopholes not paying federal tax. I don't even know how they do that, but it's mind boggling. I drive a 15-year old dodge truck. My wife drives a 14-year old honda. Both together don't add up to $10,000. We're frugal in a lot of respects. We don't over-reach. We don't want to rely on anyone in retirement (which yes, at 28 years old we think about at least in terms of preparation). But all that... and we are still financially SCARED.

I would not be complaining about even 30% tax rate if I knew everyone at an income level above me was paying that. Bring on a progressive tax, I don't care so long as 1. it's managed well, gets in the right hands and 2. it's truly progressive (not like what Trump has been able to do).

But again, I'm scared to death. I'm sure Trump is a great business man. Trump makes a great point when he says it costs 4x as much to build a road than it should. That's one thing in the back of mind that I do agree I think we need, but NOT at his level and motivation/history. But good Lord Almighty if he isn't going to do everything in his power and all of his energy into accomplishing his "trickle down economics" as he possibly can to pad the top 1% FIRST and FOREMOST. 

But my point is, I'm scared to death. This election I already feel has failed. We allowed a misogynistic, arrogant, unfiltered, politically inexperienced, cut-throat business man make it to the front runner for a major party. This blows my mind. He rode the 15-20% of the radicals' choice through each debate and made it all the way to the end. Such a broken system. Now my wife and I are sitting at home watching these ridiculous debates worried to death about our future and what we've worked for. 

For the first time this November when they announce who has won... I'll be disappointed either way.

[nevets88]

The Cyber?

Bush 43 w/the interwebs, that senator w/a series of tubes and now Trump calling the Internet, The Cyber. I don't expect politicos to be tech savvy (let alone understand the details of how the ICANN works), but get the language right.

For the most part, I understand Trump, despite his word spaghetti, which gives me a headache (to see English bludgeoned so thoroughly), but after 8 years of the not so eloquent 43, we might have 4 years of scattershot random word association jumbo 45.

[Elmer]

26 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Trump did not win, he won the first 20 minutes, after that he was on his heels, playing defense and counter punching.  The comments Hillary made about the potential reasons he wasn't releasing his tax returns hit him hard and he never recovered.  

 

Trump needs to hit her harder on having been a part of the problem for over 26 years and having been unable to solve problems she now claims she can solve if elected.  He needs to press harder on her e-mail server, poor handling of classified information and her questionable practices as SoS while raising money for the Clinton Foundation.  I was shocked that he didn't push back on those issues more when she attacked him personally. 

He also needs to release his tax documents as her speculations regarding the reasons he's not releasing them did a lot of damage.     

I agree Trump won the first few minutes but spent the rest of the match in the corner blocking jabs.
 In my opinion I dont think DT want to question HRC on anything to do with the foundation. This would put DT right back on the defense as it opens questions about his charitable donations, which brings it back to taxes.

I also think the notion that he held back and didn't go dirty is silly. His statement alone is meant to court votes for being nice.
But in reality how low and dirty can DT go, HRC has been in politics for a long time. She prepared for this debate, which entails being ready for any and all topics and comments.

I also dont think he will release his tax returns by the next debate. I think this is for a few reasons:
 it may show that he is not as "successful" as he has indicated!
It opens questions about business practices (i.e bankruptcy)
Questions about charitable donations
and puts DT under the scrutiny of others (something he despises)

I would not be surprised if he bails on the next 2 debates. Because his strength is speaking to a crowd and inciting them. Not debating points where he can get flustered and not stay on point.
I think DT has more to loose in the debate format.