Who Won the Debate?

[anatess2]

@Just_A_Guy, @yjacket

One thing I like about Rush Limbaugh is I don't have to listen to his program to hear what he's saying.  His website transcribes everything that happens in his show.

This one is a gem:

RUSH: If you want to know the angle that's closest to the truth of all this analysis, Donald Trump is the result of a failed and fractured conservatism. Donald Trump didn't cause this to the extent that people think there's a problem with conservatism. Trump fills a vacuum filled by the fractured nature of conservatism at present.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/04/trump_filled_the_vacuum_caused_by_the_fracture_in_the_conservative_movement

 

So yeah, think about it.  The TEA Party was the poster child for conservatism and that movement caused a double-house win.  What changed in government as a result?  NOTHING.  So yeah... yjacket stumbled on the reason Republicans are losers - they can't even figure out what it means to be conservative.  Bush, McCain, Romney touted as conservatives... everybody elbowing each other claiming to be the more conservative... all spouting ideologies that has ZERO EFFECT on governance.  So yeah, Trump mopping the floor of the Republican primaries is pretty much these Republicans saying - we're cleaning house.  So people like JAG can go get swept out with the debris of ideological conservatives who cling to ideology by sacrificing governance.

Apt refrain:  All talk.  No action.

Edited October 5, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 The TEA Party was the poster child for conservatism and that movement caused a double-house win.  What changed in government as a result?  

Apt refrain:  All talk.  No action.

Exactly why so many people are pissed off.  My goodness, a double house win and in the past 2 years you haven't done squat to actually shrink government-you finally gave Obama his 1st veto, you pass all the spending bills with barely a fight . . .what a bunch of spineless weasels. I can name on one hand (okay maybe two), the number of actual congresscritters who put up a fight rather than just giving platitudes.

It's actually really interesting the only people I've met in the "conservative" movement who hate Trump have been all the old establishment hacks who liked the status quo and Mormons (he is too "mean"/"nasty" for them).  My brand of conservatism is less government across the board, more libertarian but hey I'll take smaller government anyway I can get it.

If you are keeping bedfellows with the people who gave you this mess, you should wonder whether or not you are in the wrong bed (or maybe you really are part of the problem instead of the solution).

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, yjacket said:

JAG, you are no conservative. You have absolutely no standing to claim yourself as a "conservative" when you are voting for the 2nd most (if not the most) liberal individual running for President on a major ticket in US history.

You have no moral ground to talk about "conservative ideologies", you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are going to actively vote for someone who stands against pretty much every conservative principle out there.

Well, I'm apparently not your kind of conservative, to be sure.  That's really what's going on here, which I think @anatess2 (channeling Limbaugh) stated very cogently--the old alliances between various subsets of conservatism are being re-evaluated and re-arranged.  Trump shines a light on some long-standing tensions within the movement:  free-trade versus protectionism; America as leader of the free world versus a relatively isolationist America that is happy to let the international community muck things up as they will; whether opposition to abortion and gay marriage conflicts with an ideological focus on individual liberties and what the contours of "individual liberties" should be in the commercial and religious spheres; whether it's enough to just get out of businesses' way or whether we need to actively promote corporate welfare.  In my view, many of the "wrong" positions in these disputes are just as dangerous, in the long term, as the other traditional tenets of progressivism; and if as Republicans we start espousing those positions then we may as well pack up and go home. 

And in terms of who winds up winning the White House--frankly, there's not much practical difference between voting for a candidate one detests, versus merely facilitating that candidate's victory by voting third-party.  As I recall, you were quite willing to see Trump make a third-party run back when it looked like he might not clinch the nomination.  So the difference between you and I isn't really all that big--we both consider a Hillary presidency as preferable to the Republican party going in the wrong direction; and the morally superior tone and hints of betrayal that permeate posts like the above come off as unwarranted and far more vindictive than anything I see from the NeverTrumpers. 

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

People who think Bush was conservative, McCain was conservative, Romney was conservative, but Trump isn't . . . .hahahah what a bunch of fools. If this is you-you are not a conservative.  

None of them affirmatively waged war against the apparatus that was devoted to preserving and promulgating "conservatism", such as it was.  Trump has. 

Quote

People don't like Trump's personality, that is really it. he is no better or worse than any of those listed above. He wants to build a wall, big deal. Tariffs, umm, last I checked the US was founded on the idea that the Government would be funded primarily by tariff. 

No opposition to building the wall; I think one of the services Trump has done in this election is moving the Overton window vis a vis the immigration debate.  And tariffs--sure, collect a minimal amount to keep the government running; but Messrs Smoot and Hawley showed us what happens when we try to use the tariff to feather the nests of corporate cronyists --er, protect vulnerable workers.

Quote

People say Trump is populist, yet they can't define it. I ask people to define what exactly they mean by populism?  The cult of Personality? For the record, I wouldn't classify Trump as conservative, I'd classify him as a non-ideological pragmatic. I don't like a lot of his ideas, but they are better than what got us here.

All I can say is if your version of Conservatism is Bush, McCain, Romney,  Bye!!! and don't let the door hit you on the way out!! The rest of us will actually try and restore liberty to this country.

So . . . we should look to a non-conservative to re-enthrone conservatism.  Sounds legit. 

Here's the thing that the alt-right, for all their professed love of the Constitution, doesn't understand:  A government based in separation-of-powers was supposed to create gridlock.  A do-nothing government is a feature, not a bug; because the framers understood that depravity, tyranny and terror are the natural affinities of a government that is able to do too much too quickly.  So in the American system, nothing was supposed to happen unless it was supported by something approaching a national consensus. 

Given that milieu, conservatism's failures have less to do with any purported ideological deficiency than with the fact that there is a flourishing oppositional world-view that has control of the educational establishment, pop culture, and (increasingly) the federal judiciary.  You're not going to see massive conservative change in that environment, and you can't take anything for granted--you've got to get into the trenches and slug it out, one debate--one vote--at a time. 

If you think Trump is going to accomplish what generations of conservatives have failed to do, then it follows that you believe one of three things about Trump:

1)  That he is going to build a national consensus by making everybody love him;

2)  That he will unconstitutionally skirt or undermine the separation-of-powers doctrine; or

3)  That he will unconstitutionally use the Presidency to federalize state educational establishments (the better to purge them of their liberal influences) and to curttail the first-amendment rights of mass media producers.

He's on the wrong track to accomplish 1), and 2) and 3) are why you guys scare me so much.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is pretty  much all y'all Never Trumpers:

And believe me, we find your ad hominems to be oh-so-effective. 

Here's the thing about that meme of yours:  For all her multitudinous flaws I don't believe Hillary kills politically inconvenient people; I don't believe she was solely or even primarily responsible for the deaths at Benghazi; I don't believe she deliberately leaked national security secrets; and I'm willing to put up with the bogus Dem primary--this time--because for the first time, millions of Bernie-ites are now acknowledging the need for electoral reform in this country. 

Look, lots of the criticisms of Trump are appropriate; but in a lot of areas I'd freely acknowledge that he hasn't gotten a fair shake.  You'll never see me go after him for minimizing or eliminating tax liability by carrying over legitimate business investment loss from prior years, for example. 

Similarly--while Hillary should be called to account for her extreme recklessness and dishonesty; I think you're nuking the fridge when you suggest that a) Hillary murders political opponents, b) was, as SecState, responsible for the White House's/SecDef's failure to mobilize assets in a timely manner in Benghazi (or even that anyone in Washington was bound to blow a covert operation in the name of sending aid), or c) deliberately gave classified info the Russkies.  The Trumpkins' habit of making sweeping conclusions about very nuanced situations--especially they have so many more accurate arguments that they could be making instead--just makes the Trumpkins look unhinged.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, I'm apparently not your kind of conservative, to be sure.  That's really what's going on here, which I think @anatess2 (channeling Limbaugh) stated very cogently--the old alliances between various subsets of conservatism are being re-evaluated and re-arranged.  Trump shines a light on some long-standing tensions within the movement:  free-trade versus protectionism; America as leader of the free world versus a relatively isolationist America that is happy to let the international community muck things up as they will; whether opposition to abortion and gay marriage conflicts with an ideological focus on individual liberties and what the contours of "individual liberties" should be in the commercial and religious spheres; whether it's enough to just get out of businesses' way or whether we need to actively promote corporate welfare.  In my view, many of the "wrong" positions in these disputes are just as dangerous, in the long term, as the other traditional tenets of progressivism; and if as Republicans we start espousing those positions then we may as well pack up and go home. 

And in terms of who winds up winning the White House--frankly, there's not much practical difference between voting for a candidate one detests, versus merely facilitating that candidate's victory by voting third-party.  As I recall, you were quite willing to see Trump make a third-party run back when it looked like he might not clinch the nomination.  So the difference between you and I isn't really all that big--we both consider a Hillary presidency as preferable to the Republican party going in the wrong direction; and the morally superior tone and hints of betrayal that permeate posts like the above come off as unwarranted and far more vindictive than anything I see from the NeverTrumpers. 

None of them affirmatively waged war against the apparatus that was devoted to preserving and promulgating "conservatism", such as it was.  Trump has. 

No opposition to building the wall; I think one of the services Trump has done in this election is moving the Overton window vis a vis the immigration debate.  And tariffs--sure, collect a minimal amount to keep the government running; but Messrs Smoot and Hawley showed us what happens when we try to use the tariff to feather the nests of corporate cronyists --er, protect vulnerable workers.

So . . . we should look to a non-conservative to re-enthrone conservatism.  Sounds legit. 

Here's the thing that the alt-right, for all their professed love of the Constitution, doesn't understand:  A government based in separation-of-powers was supposed to create gridlock.  Nothing was supposed to happen unless it was supported by something approaching a national consensus.  Conservatism's failures have less to do with any purported ideological deficiency, than with the fact that there is a flourishing opposing world-view that has control of the educational establishment, pop culture, and (increasingly) the federal judiciary.  If you think Trump is going to accomplish what generations of conservatives have failed to do, then it follows that you believe one of three things about Trump:

1)  That he is going to build a national consensus by making everybody love him;

2)  That he will unconstitutionally skirt or undermine the separation-of-powers doctrine; or

3)  That he will unconstitutionally use the Presidency to federalize state educational establishments (the better to purge them of their liberal influences) and to curttail the first-amendment rights of mass media producers.

And believe me, we find your ad hominems oh-so-effective. 

Here's the thing about that meme of yours:  For all her multitudinous flaws I don't believe Hillary kills politically inconvenient people; I don't believe she was solely or even primarily responsible for the deaths at Benghazi; I don't believe she deliberately leaked national security secrets; and I'm willing to put up with the bogus Dem primary--this time--because for the first time, millions of Bernie-ites are now acknowledging the need for electoral reform in this country. 

Look, lots of the criticisms of Trump are appropriate; but in a lot of areas I'd freely acknowledge that he hasn't gotten a fair shake.  You'll never see me go after him for minimizing or eliminating tax liability by carrying over legitimate business investment loss from prior years, for example. 

Similarly--while Hillary should be called to account for her extreme recklessness and dishonesty; I think you're nuking the fridge when you suggest that a) Hillary murders political opponents, b) was, as SecState, responsible for the White House's/SecDef's failure to mobilize assets in a timely manner in Benghazi (or even that anyone in Washington was bound to blow a covert operation in the name of sending aid), or c) deliberately gave classified info the Russkies.  The Trumpkins' habit of making sweeping conclusions about very nuanced situations--especially they have so many more accurate arguments that they could be making instead--just makes the Trumpkins look unhinged.

 

There ya go, @yjacket.  The Emperor is nekked... even went and used the "Alt-Right" word on us and went on Hillary-defense.  Gee whiz loueeze...

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

In any case, Mike Pence did a great job last night. Tim Kaine would not stop interrupting him, which made Kaine look bad. But lets face it, the Vice President doesn't do much more than attend funerals and stand behind the president when he speaks. I, as a republican, certainly wish Pence was our candidate instead of Trump. I thought the same thing last election with Romney and Ryan. But in the last four years, Paul Ryan has changed a lot. 

Mike Pence won the debate but it won't change anything.

 

Let's not lose this post...

We've been through almost 10 years of "Pence" in some form or another winning with nothing to show for it...

But yesterday's debate was basically this:

Pence - Issue issue issue issue

Moderator - "How can I stop Pence's good night?"

Kaine - I don't care if I lose this debate.  I just want to sling as much mud on Trump as I can.  What is my plan for fighting ISIS?  Well, Trump has to release his tax returns, of course!

 

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

There ya go, @yjacket.  The Emperor is nekked... even went and used the "Alt-Right" word on us and went on Hillary-defense.  Gee whiz loueeze...

I'm happy to use a term other than "alt-right" if you find it offensive.  I thought your own intellectual leaders have embraced the term.  But the simple fact is, Trumps devotees can't be lumped in with mainstream conservatives.  Most conservatives understand the problems of government by strongman.

As for my purported "Hillary defense"--if I was wrong, tell me why and how.  But otherwise, you shouldn't really take our mutual dislike of a given candidate as a green light for you to go off and make bogus accusations about said candidate.  Just because Trump thinks truth is irrelevant in a political campaign, doesn't mean the rest of us think similarly.

[prisonchaplain]

15 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

After seeing tonight's debate, i must ask... what is a great guy like Pence doing hanging around an, ummm... slightly less great guy like Trump?  Pence is obviously far more gifted as a leader, far more in control, and far more authentic as a person.  It should be pence running for president!

Funny you should bring this matter up.  See the final point in this link:  http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/299344-five-takeaways-from-the-vice-presidential-debate  The author does see a 2020 possibility for Pence. 

[yjacket]

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Trump shines a light on some long-standing tensions within the movement: 

For all your blather, your comments can be summed up in two words.  Globalist vs. American. 

You think we are electing the leader of the world-we aren't. The world always has been and always will be a nasty place with bad actors and nothing we do will change that fact.  What we can do is protect ourselves. 

If globalism is your brand of conservatism, no thank you-you can keep it and go vote Hilterly (she is definitely a globalist).  You want to save the world at the expense of the US, I want to save the US, the world be darned. Voting for someone who domestically thinks we should give free college education, free housing, free everything, give free money to everyone else (foreign partners), provide free national security for the world, etc, etc. etc.  Your conservatism is just socialism by another name.

I'm an American first, we should take care of this country 1st. No other country is looking out for us, so we might as well do it ourselves. Free trade is a myth something purported by globalists at heart- the WTO, etc. are just organizations that promote graft, it's not free trade but managed trade for the benefit of the politically connected. Abortion . . .it is a wedge issue-I hate it, but get over it far worse things have been done in the name of your global brand of conservatism.

Like I said, it is quite enlightening to find out who are the globalist/socialists and who are the Americans.

This conversation is exactly why the elites, the pundits don't get, and haven't got this election. People are sick and tired of politicians trying to rule the world and sinking the US with it.

JAG, I hate to break it to you but you're not a conservative-the globalist things you spout off are not "conservative" values, they are progressive,socialist, values. Your brand of "conservatism" doesn't bring a smaller government, but a much larger one with more power, more control, more ability to curtail freedoms and liberty to promote "world peace" or whatever other blather it is.

Good riddance to the big government, spend, spend, spend, warfare elite neo "conservatives"!

[yjacket]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

JAG, as an FYI, I've been involved in classified material, etc.  I can say with 100% certainty had anyone else not named Clinton done what she did, they would be in jail.

Have fun voting for a criminal!!! 

[yjacket]

JAG,

You're all over the place.  1st you say you want to elect people that bring conservatism back, then you castigate others b/c they say Congress didn't do anything and you say that's how it's "supposed" to work. ergo, even according to your logic, nothing you can do matters b/c we are "supposed" to have gridlock.

And saying that voting for third party is the same as a vote for so and so, is so incredibly logically inconsistent it boggles the mind.  

Here I will spell it out for you.

10 votes:

R  D L    vs R D L

4  4  2        4 5 1

See simple math shows voting 3rd party is not the same thing as voting for so and so.

Edited October 5, 2016 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

For all your blather, your comments can be summed up in two words.  Globalist vs. American. 

You think we are electing the leader of the world-we aren't. The world always has been and always will be a nasty place with bad actors and nothing we do will change that fact.  What we can do is protect ourselves.

Like we protected ourselves between the Spanish-American War and World War 1; or between World War 1 and World War 2?

"Globalism" is a very convenient boogeyman; but what I'm talking of isn't a matter of homogenizing the world or eroding American sovereignty.  It's a question of whether we let local conflicts escalate into global conflagrations which inevitably drag us in; or whether we try to identify the most volatile flare-ups and nip them in the bud.  The year 2007 was our deadliest year in Iraq--we saw 904 Americans die.  But we could have kept up that pace for four hundred sixty one years, and still come out ahead of the game if our intervention had prevented one conflict of World War 2's magnitude. 

That's reality.  That's what we can do. 

It doesn't mean we wantonly plunge headlong into local conflicts of ephemeral significance--the military-industrial complex is real and needs to be held in check.  But it does suggest that our role on the international stage needs to a little less ostrich-like.

Quote

Voting for someone who domestically thinks we should give free college education, free housing, free everything, give free money to everyone else (foreign partners), provide free national security for the world, etc, etc. etc.

Refresh my memory--how much did Trump donate to her, again?

Quote

Free trade is a myth something purported by globalists at heart- the WTO, etc. are just organizations that promote graft, it's not free trade but managed trade for the benefit of the politically connected.

I love how because I stick with Smith and Ricardo and Friedman, my conservative bona fides are somehow in question. 

One can, of course, defend free trade without making obeisance to the WTO and other NGOs.  But even in spite of the bureaucracy, we are better off as a nation because of the free trade pacts we have entered (see the links compiled here).  Yes, sometimes other countries outcompete us for jobs in certain sectors; but studies indicate that for every single American job lost, the American economy as a whole gains $450,000 in higher productivity and lower consumer prices.

And even if you think global trade is a bad thing--the idea that Trump, of all people, would shut it down when he's so personally invested in outsourcing; is frankly laughable. 

Quote

Abortion . . .it is a wedge issue-I hate it, but get over it far worse things have been done in the name of your global brand of conservatism.

My "brand of conservatism" involves saving American lives and not having government tell Americans who they can and can't buy stuff from. 

And you know, it's interesting--you're quite fond of that ingenious "Hitlery" moniker; but Hitler only killed 6-11 million in the Holocaust.  We've had 58 million abortions since Roe, and up until quite recently Trump's position seemed to be that Republicans should just shut up about it.  So don't act like abortion doesn't matter. 

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

JAG, as an FYI, I've been involved in classified material, etc.  I can say with 100% certainty had anyone else not named Clinton done what she did, they would be in jail.

Have fun voting for a criminal!!! 

YJacket, as an FYI, I've been involved in rape cases.  I can say with 100% certainty had anyone else not named "Trump" done what he did to Ivana, they would be in jail.

YJacket, as an FYI, I've been involved in bankruptcies.  I can say with 100% certainty that had anyone else not named "Trump" done what he did to his investors, they would be held to have acted in bad faith (i.e., "a con man") and would have been denied a bankruptcy discharge.

YJacket, as an FYI, I've been involved in contract litigation.  I can say with 100% certainty that had anyone else not named "Trump" done what he did under oath, they would be held in contempt for perjury.

YJacket, as an FYI, I've been involved in child protection cases.  I can say with 100% certainty that had anyone else not named "Trump" said what he said about his own daughter, they would have been universally labeled an all-around creep even if the daughter was now too old to be removed from the home.

Have fun voting for a criminal, con man, perjurer, and all-around creep!!!

[See what I did there?  Subtlety's my strong point.  ]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

You're all over the place.  1st you say you want to elect people that bring conservatism back, then you castigate others b/c they say Congress didn't do anything and you say that's how it's "supposed" to work. ergo, even according to your logic, nothing you can do matters b/c we are "supposed" to have gridlock.

I didn't say "nothing you can do matters".  I said that you need to playing a long game that builds national consensus; rather than punishing your enemies (and your friends) and shredding the Constitution just because things aren't going fast enough for your liking.  I'm focusing on the former; Trump's followers seem obsessed with the latter.

Quote

And saying that voting for third party is the same as a vote for so and so, is so incredibly logically inconsistent it boggles the mind.  

Here I will spell it out for you.

10 votes:

R  D L    vs R D L

4  4  2        4 5 1

See simple math shows voting 3rd party is not the same thing as voting for so and so.

So basically, it only matters if, out of millions and millions of votes cast, there is an exact tie. 

In that extremely unlikely event:  phooey on Trump for having said he didn't need my vote; and phooey on the Trumpkins for backing him when other Republican contenders were polling better against HIllary than he was.  Either way, looks like America is going to spend a few years under the jackboots of libertinism, secularism, corporate cronyism, dishonesty and dishonor while the world burns around us--and the only real question is whether I'll still be able to buy cheap shoes at Wal-Mart. 

Very well, then; que sera, sera.  But when the country comes to its senses--when the Trumpkins finally sate their bloodlust and pronounce themselves avenged of all their enemies, and the left is confronted with undeniable proof of progressivism's failure, I'd rather not have Americans blaming the Republicans for all of the country's woes.  I'd rather see the Republican party standing ready with a plan to pull us out of the mire. 

And that's why Donald J. Trump needs to lose. 

Because this election hasn't been about making America great--not since the day Trump got the nomination.  It's about making sure that, when the inevitable trainwreck finally happens, our guys will be found in the rescue helicopter and not in the engine cab.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I've been involved in rape cases.  I can say with 100% certainty had anyone else not named "Trump" done what he did to Ivana, they would be in jail.

Lol . . .you are showing your bias.  You don't know that and you know as a lawyer you can't say that. 1st off, the supposed instance occurred in 1989 prior to many current marital rape laws.

The issues you bring up come into a he said/she said, which as you know are difficult to prove in a court of law.

The e-mail scandal isn't a he said she said.

JAG, you're aren't logical, you're emotional.  You make the moral equivalent of the supposed things Trump has done to a woman who's very actions put operational CIA actions, officers and lives at risk.  The simple fact that TS//SCI information was exposed on an unclassified server that the Russians, Chinese and everyone else could get access to, that she willfully disregarded any security protocols is undeniable.  That she more than likely received TS//SCI e-mails from The President himself is highly likely.

So go ahead and start defending Obama, b/c the moment you start defending Clinton is the moment you start defending Obama.  You are emotional about this not logical.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Like we protected ourselves between the Spanish-American War and World War 1; or between World War 1 and World War 2?

You are very clearly unschooled in history.  The Spanish-American War was not started for anything other then colonial expansionist desires. The US population already hated Spain at the time and then came the Maine . . ."Remember the Maine".  Except that oh that's right, it was actually a boiler explosion rather than the Spanish destroying the ship.  What a convenient excuse to go to war.

Yes, let's talk about WW2, the biggest continuation of a failure and consequence of the US's mucking around.  WW2 was a continuation of WW1, had the US stayed out of WW1, the European power would have come to an agreement (it was a stalement prior to the US entering), but thanks to world banking global desires, the US was goaded into WW1. Which then produced the Treaty of Vesailles, which was so extremely punitive to Germany (who really was just on the opposite side of the war for this one-neither side was morally good), that the populace hated France and Britain especially after France still occupied the Rhineland after the end of the war until 1930 and stripped it of it's mineral values. Ever wonder why the Germans hated France and occupied France-it was payback for occupying the Rhineland.

So the German people punished by losing a war that should have been a stalemate had the US not entered fell under the sirens call of a new Third Reich.

So yes, the world would have been much better off had the US just minded it's own business.

[Blueskye2]

On 10/4/2016 at 8:44 AM, anatess2 said:

Have you ever heard of anybody - including the restaurant dishwasher - who laments, man!  I don't pay enough taxes!  I need to redo my tax returns!

With Trump, here's the context:

Personal tax is what your tax returns state is your taxes owed on your personal taxable income.  Personal taxable income is your paycheck or your capital gains or interest earned out of your savings.  Of course, when transparency in "tax returns" is demanded, the people expect Trump to be like everyone else who works for some guy (like Hillary working for the government) who gives them a paycheck.

A guy who OWNS THE COMPANY THAT WRITES THE PAYCHECK does not want to write himself a paycheck so big that he incurs a lot of personal tax.  That is VERY DUMB in the business arena.  Why is that?  Because, if you take out such money out of your investment, you have now STOPPED the means of that money to gain more money.  That means, you will not be using that money to expand the business, hire more people, invest in operating capital, etc. etc. which then gives you a return on that investment - more money!

Now, about ethics and taxes.  Every single business owner knows darned well that they have been taxed to the yinyang in corporate taxes, tarrifs, property taxes, document fees, etc. etc.

Have you ever bought a house?  Did you see all the money that goes to the government out of your closing costs?  Now, think about how much taxes Trump has given the government everytime he purchases, builds, sells, any of his real estate properties.

You sure you want to accuse Trump of a lack of ethics in paying Taxes?

I'm not really for corporate welfare. Trump failed at a business, big time, and we cover his taxes for nearly two decades  

My dad is a successful business entepeheur. Of course you pay yourself otherwise you have no food, shelter or clothing.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

On 10/4/2016 at 11:02 AM, yjacket said:

I asked for a direct quote a CFR, you couldn't provide one, ergo Trump didn't really say that, you just think that is what he said. CFR that he said he would "bomb everyone".

Since when does "China should lean on North Korea" become "China should go to war with North Korea" . . .only in people's mind who want it to be that way does "lean on" mean "go to war with". Lean on means, pressure, means political pressure.  We "lean on" Iran all the time with sanctions.  If that "lean on" means military action then I guess we've already attacked Iran according to the way you re-interpret words.

If I was pregnant and destitute, I'd want to come here too!! That's not the point.  If someone was handing out free houses, I'd want a free one too! That's not the point! The point is whether as a nation of laws and ethics (as you point it), we are ethically bound to give someone a free house as a country because thew want it.  You have a serious lack of understanding about economics and how things really work if you believe that WE don't pay for hospital care for those who can't pay. Someone, somewhere pays.  The Doctor's time must be paid (he doesn't go work at the hospital for free), the medical supplies must be bought (they don't just magically, poof!, show up). Those things have real costs.  If the hospital can't collect money from the person they are servicing and if they don't find some way to cover those costs-the hospital will go bankrupt and there won't be a hospital anymore. A non-profit organization must still pay people salaries, non-profit doesn't mean voluntary, it just means they don't provide payouts to shareholders, it's more of a tax term then anything else.  A non-profit uses the excess revenue or "profit" in other ways than paying out shareholders, etc.  A non-profit still makes money every year that they can roll-over the next year.  So they must collect that money and they do it by charging someone, somewhere the costs for those services. Those costs are spread out over all the rest of their customers; their customers include you and me, or anyone who can pay who uses their services, i.e. insurance.  

To wit: why do you think the ObamaCare exhanges are collapsing? Because those companies assumed a huge risk pool of individuals who couldn't pay or who would only pay significantly reduced rates. The only way those exchanges can survive is a massive increase in the actual premium preciously b/c so many people don't pay enough to cover the costs! 

Your ideas on this subject inform me that either a) you've simply voted R b/c everyone else votes R or b) you are really liberal at heart and would vote Hillary regardless of what Trump says or does-simply b/c or c) you really have no idea how the system works, including as to why Hillary is a really bad idea-yes way, way worse than Trump (and he's not that great either)

I'll never understand the argument, that the uninsured are raising our health costs while simultaneously saying trying to get everyone insured is a bad idea. Yeah, a bunch of old, sick people signed up for insurance via the exchanges. High costs for insurers. I was never for government funding private business as a means to health coverage for everyone.  More corporate welfare and now they're crying their welfare checks aren't being delivered as promised. Wah, wah, all the way home. 

I am for universal healthcare, just not the system that has been implemented.

I am neither R or D loyalist.  I cast my vote for the person not the party. My religious beliefs influence my decision, not in the form of a religious test. Rather testing the person's views and actions against the beatitudes. I don't expect perfection, as none of us are God. But a serious, overt, stance for war, disenfranchisement of the poor, hungry, SICK, imprisoned, refugees, those fleeing untenable, violent,  situations, etc, will influence me away. I have no influence via a vote in any other country but my own. 

I view neither candidate as perfect in any way, so I'm left to figure out who is the least worst choice as I view them both as poor choices in one way or another. In the list of pros and cons, Clinton and Trump have both. Trump seems to me as more extreme in his views, not willing to compromise, views diplomacy as non action, and I view diplomacy as having more value than bombs. Thats where GWB lost me. That's where Trump is losing on my list of pros and cons.  

That, and the Catholic in me sees bias against people who are brown and Catholic, every time he opens his mouth about the "Mexican thing", as Pence put it last night. Bias against brown and Muslim as well. ...he's coming across as "American values" is shorthand for white Protestant.  

I dont have have a lot of time to research Trump quotes. I've reached the saturation point with this election, honestly, and rereading or watching what I've already covered just bums me out more than I already am. Here's what I find, but not finding the speech I recall...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/donald-trump-libya-isis/

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-bomb-isis-2015-11

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-refuses-to-rule-out-using-nuclear-weapons-in-attack-on-europe-a6961101.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/669104/Donald-Trump-US-Kim-Jong-Un-wipe-out-nuclear-base-president-North-Korea

 

...I think if ones interest is staying out of wars, Trump doesn't have the same interest.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

On 10/4/2016 at 5:56 AM, yjacket said:

This is actually a really good article. 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperament

I agree with most of it except with his nicknames . . .but if the worst thing he does as a President is call a foreign leader like Putin the Grouchy Bear or something I can live with that.

Putin is an old spook who yearns for the good ole days of the USSR. He's a terrible leader, not someone to look up to, or compliment for good leadership. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Larry Cotrell]

24 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Putin is an old spook who yearns for the good ole days of the USSR.

Definitely true. There's no simpler way to put it.

25 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

He's a terrible leader, not someone to look up to, or compliment for good leadership. 

He does a good job as being a dictator in that he knows how to control people. But yes, he is no role model when it comes to leadership.

[prisonchaplain]

20 hours ago, yjacket said:

For all your blather, your comments can be summed up in two words.  Globalist vs. American. 

You think we are electing the leader of the world-we aren't. The world always has been and always will be a nasty place with bad actors and nothing we do will change that fact.  What we can do is protect ourselves. 

If globalism is your brand of conservatism, no thank you-you can keep it and go vote Hilterly (she is definitely a globalist).  You want to save the world at the expense of the US, I want to save the US, the world be darned....

Many posters here have had a taste of the world beyond the U.S. I spent 7 years in South Korea, during a season when anti-Americanism was pretty strong, and protectionism was popular with the college students (Farmers' movement, factory workers' movement, etc.).  Nevertheless, most South Koreans then (1987-93) much preferred American influence to the Chinese or Russian versions.  Maybe instead of "globalist vs. American" we should call this BIG AMERICA vs. small America.  We are a moral, and yes military, force for good in the world.  We are not perfect, and many countries have their legitimate criticisms.  Still, our democratic-republican government, with separation of powers, remains an international model.  We are still a prime dream destination for immigrants seeking better lives.

Having said all that, Trump has chosen to side with social conservatives (especially with judicial appointments), and I'm just going to have to believe that his nativist-protectionist rhetoric is part of his negotiation strategy with the world.  He'll cut some new deals that allow for continued trade, but on better terms for us.  

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

I'm not really for corporate welfare. Trump failed at a business, big time, and we cover his taxes for nearly two decades  

My dad is a successful business entepeheur. Of course you pay yourself otherwise you have no food, shelter or clothing.

 

"We cover his taxes"... that's where your perception turns left.

Trump is on that elite station of 1%-ers who are paying 80% of the tax burden.  You are not covering his taxes.  You CAN'T possibly be covering his taxes.  Just the taxes he has to pay for having thousands of employees already pays for a big chunk of government services.  You do know that every business who runs a payroll has to pay a big portion of payroll taxes right?   You can't write off payroll taxes as a loss.  You can't write off property taxes as a loss.  You can't write off sales taxes as a loss.  You can't write off export or import taxes, Etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you need to expand your knowledge of all the number of ways the government is sucking out money out of Trump (or any other businessman for that matter).

No no... I think you need to start thinking about why you like to wage class warfare.  Because, at the root of that is Envy.  A very effective weapon in the leftist political arsenal - getting people to feel envious of the rich so they wouldn't think twice about using the power of government to take their money that you think belongs to you.

Edited October 6, 2016 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

One axiom that has not changed in the 32 years I've been voting:  Democrats want to create more government programs for the poor (by taxing the rich--meaning anyone with a higher-than-minimum-wage job), while Republicans want to create jobs by cutting government waste and taxes. Republicans call the Democrat plan Socialism-lite, and Democrats call the Republican plan Trickle-Down Economics.  Simple gravity tells me that trickle down works better. 

The sin of Republican economics will always be the unequal distribution of wealth.  The blessing of Democrat economics will always be the equal distribution of poverty.

[Just_A_Guy]

22 hours ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . .you are showing your bias.  You don't know that and you know as a lawyer you can't say that. 1st off, the supposed instance occurred in 1989 prior to many current marital rape laws.

Except that New York, where the incident took place, overturned its marital rape exception in 1984.

And pay very, very close attention to what you just wrote.  Not only have you echoed Trump's own lawyers in misstating the law, but you did so to defend the legality of a rape.  That's not you, YJacket.  It's not who you are.  But here you are, doing it, in order to avoid conceding that maybe someone like me has just cause for not wanting Trump in the White House.

Quote

The issues you bring up come into a he said/she said, which as you know are difficult to prove in a court of law.

Well, thank goodness for that. 

Another "bimbo eruption", I guess. 

But . . . if you thought Ivana was such a lousy witness, then why did you take pains to suggest that raping one's own wife isn't really illegal?

21 hours ago, yjacket said:

You are very clearly unschooled in history.  The Spanish-American War was not started for anything other then colonial expansionist desires. The US population already hated Spain at the time and then came the Maine . . ."Remember the Maine".  Except that oh that's right, it was actually a boiler explosion rather than the Spanish destroying the ship.  What a convenient excuse to go to war.

You've misread my point, which was that whatever actions we took in the interim between that war and WW1 were not enough to keep us out of WW1.  (More on that below.)

Quote

Yes, let's talk about WW2, the biggest continuation of a failure and consequence of the US's mucking around.  WW2 was a continuation of WW1, had the US stayed out of WW1, the European power would have come to an agreement (it was a stalement prior to the US entering), but thanks to world banking global desires, the US was goaded into WW1. Which then produced the Treaty of Vesailles, which was so extremely punitive to Germany (who really was just on the opposite side of the war for this one-neither side was morally good), that the populace hated France and Britain especially after France still occupied the Rhineland after the end of the war until 1930 and stripped it of it's mineral values. Ever wonder why the Germans hated France and occupied France-it was payback for occupying the Rhineland.

So the German people punished by losing a war that should have been a stalemate had the US not entered fell under the sirens call of a new Third Reich.

So yes, the world would have been much better off had the US just minded it's own business.

Well, let's parse out WW1 and WW2.  First, the big issue--are you saying that, regardless of any mistakes we'd made in WW1, we should have sat WW2 out?

Second, re WW1 - Given America's history of going to war with potentates who capture/sink our boats (Quasi-war with France, the Barbary wars, the War of 1812, the Paraguay Expedition . . .) I think it's unrealistic to expect the US to have not responded militarily to Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. 

I agree with you about the failings of the Treaty of Versailles, but it's probably worth noting that Wilson was a (largely ineffectual) voice for moderation there.  Clemenceau and Lloyd-George basically outwitted him. 

But the punitive terms of the treaty were not, in and of themselves, the barrier to a lasting peace.  Germany would show in 1945-1950 (and in East Germany, for another generation thereafter) that it could submit to truly humiliating peace terms, once the people knew they were beaten.  And that, I think is the fundamental problem with the resolution to WW1:  the Germany people didn't know they were beaten, because the allies hadn't made it into the German heartland and the German news outlets were still publishing mostly good news right up to the end.  It was literally a situation of "we're winning, we're winning, we're winning--wait, we surrendered?", and it left a strong sense among the German people that their own government had sold them out--especially when the allies' demands turned out to be so excessive.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

The sin of Republican economics will always be the unequal distribution of wealth.  The blessing of Democrat economics will always be the equal distribution of poverty.

The real sin doesn't have anything to do with R economics, it has everything to do with how the money is created in the first place. It's a very logical flow.  Money is created by a) The Federal Government in the form of bonds b) the Federal Reserve who buys the bonds and c) commercial banks who create money out of thin air.  

Those who have 1st access to the money being created will always have a larger share of the pie- it's not a bug, it's a feature of the system.  That is why wealthiest corporations are the banks, military contractor companies, and then to a lessor extent all the bubbles they blow on Wall Street. 

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And pay very, very close attention to what you just wrote.  Not only have you echoed Trump's own lawyers in misstating the law, but you did so to defend the legality of a rape.  That's not you, YJacket.  It's not who you are.  But here you are, doing it, in order to avoid conceding that maybe someone like me has just cause for not wanting Trump in the White House.

JAG,

Do I need to put you on ignore? As you well know, many rape cases end up being a he said, she said affair-unless you have verifiable proof in the form of a rape it.  You know this, to say otherwise is to give bad legal advice, and that's not you, that's not who you are.

[Just_A_Guy]

15 minutes ago, yjacket said:

JAG,

Do I need to put you on ignore?

I don't know.  Do you?

Quote

As you well know, many rape cases end up being a he said, she said affair-unless you have verifiable proof in the form of a rape it.  You know this, to say otherwise is to give bad legal advice, and that's not you, that's not who you are.

That's quite besides the point.  If you're defending a rape case, you don't start out by saying "Your honor, there's nothing legally wrong with rape".

Edited October 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't know.  Do you?

That's quite besides the point.  If you're defending a rape case, you don't start out by saying "Your honor, there's nothing legally wrong with rape".

I never said there was nothing wrong with rape; all I said is that the laws then are different than the laws today. That's not a comment on whether marital rape is good or bad, just simply a statement of fact.  And as you know as a lawyer, the law is all about what is legal and/or not legal and it isn't a commentary on the moral goodness of the act.

You are so blinded by hatred that you can't carry on a legalistic argument.