This is a list of 18 false claims Donald Trump made in a single day.
And that day was yesterday.
But both sides are equally intellectually dishonest, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not be surprised if a comparable list of Clinton dishonesty would be dismissed as being unfounded (or worse, conspiracy theories), or coming from an unreliable source.
Yet a lot of people do not seem to trust Hillary Clinton all that much. Now why is that a thing? I know you like being confrontational Scott, but that does not make you "win" a debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several decades of smearing by her political enemies?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several decades of smearing by her political enemies?
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.
lots of stuff
thejeff,
My composite, total taxes paid between federal, state, local, Social Security and Medicaid - not my federal tax rate, which is not something I've been claiming was anywhere close to 45% - is roughly 45% of net income after business expenses and other reasonable deductions. My math is demonstrated.
Were the county to assess my home at a lower value without increasing the assessment rate, that tax would drop. However, as we saw before, during and after the bubble popped, counties expect #$ in property tax revenue. If they cannot assess real and personal property at a certain aggregate value because the housing market has tanked and everyone's driving jalopies, they jack up the assessment rate. If you're lucky, they readjust the tax rates downward as the assessment values return to pre-bubble-pop levels.
Income tax brackets at the typical level for my line of work is at an effective federal rate of 24% after doing (base tax) plus (28% of amount over base).
Taxes are what they are, and I have to budget more for them than a payroll employee does because that is how the system works for small business owners that are not incorporated.
FICA taxes are paid on net income, not gross, for small businesses. If I have a nice enough year to significantly (rather than marginally) exceed the $118.5k threshold for 2016, I'm in a 3-4% higher federal income tax bracket. Because of that bracket, I prefer to avoid it unless things are shaping up to jump significantly higher than the baseline federal tax rate for that net income bracket. If you barely squeak into the bracket, you lose money compared to if you were just a bit lower, falling into the upper range of the bracket below.
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.
Emphasis on "might". There's an important distinction here, though.
The accusations against Clinton have come largely from her political opponents, who will directly benefit if she fails. They've been repeatedly disproven, too - there's no fire beneath all the smoke.
The issues with Trump - such as comments on his racism, sexism, and bigotry - have come from largely independent observers who have no innate reason to be for or against him.
These aren't really comparable situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.Emphasis on "might". There's an important distinction here, though.
The accusations against Clinton have come largely from her political opponents, who will directly benefit if she fails. They've been repeatedly disproven, too - there's no fire beneath all the smoke.
The issues with Trump - such as comments on his racism, sexism, and bigotry - have come from largely independent observers who have no innate reason to be for or against him.
These aren't really comparable situations.
So only people who oppose Clinton politically would criticize her?
I know you said "largely" as in "not all" but that still sounds like you'd paint most (if not all) the naysayers with the same brush, more or less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not be surprised if a comparable list of Clinton dishonesty would be dismissed as being unfounded (or worse, conspiracy theories), or coming from an unreliable source.
There is no comparable list of Clinton dishonesty, because Clinton doesn't go on the campaign trail, make two stops, and lie to the American people 18 times in the process.
No one is suggesting that Clinton is perfectly honest. She is roughly as honest as your average politician, perhaps slightly more honest if her Politifact record is any indication.
But Trump is something special. He is remarkably dishonest. Like, no-one-even-comes-close dishonest.
Yet a lot of people do not seem to trust Hillary Clinton all that much. Now why is that a thing? I know you like being confrontational Scott, but that does not make you "win" a debate.
I've never said or believed that it does. So why the random attack on my character?
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.
I'm going to ask you to be a bit more intellectually honest yourself, and not twist my words to support your narrative. I did not suggest that it's possible to reliably judge the accuracy of any and all accusations based on the number of people who believe those accusations.
I'll repeat: what you just claimed I established was something that I did not establish, and do not believe to be true.
I established that accusations of racism can be reliably predicted (not with perfect accuracy, but with a high degree of accuracy) to be true if those accusations come from diverse, independent groups of people, repeatedly, over an extended period of time. I'm not arguing anything beyond that. I made that claim so that it could not only be shown that Trump himself is racist (that much is obvious, because we have his record to look at) but also that supporters of his who suggest that the terms "racist" or "bigot" are being used unfairly - in my experience, they object to those terms because they frequently find themselves labeled with those terms. This isn't a heuristic that I'm suggesting we use in place of actual evidence of racism (or the absence thereof). I'm suggesting that it's reasonable to use it when we aren't familiar with the individual's behavior ourselves, but are familiar with others' reactions to their behavior.
I'm curious what your thesis is, though, Icyshadow. Are you trying to argue that both sides are equally intellectually dishonest? If so, what credible evidence do you have of that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several decades of smearing by her political enemies?
That's certainly part of it.
Part of it is also her gender; we as a society seem to spend an inordinate amount of time working to undermine the claims of women.
Part of it is also her (and her husband's) apparent blind spot to any appearance of impropriety. This is one of the things I find most maddening about her — either she sees no ethical ambiguity in the more questionable actions, or she doesn't care if there is. Both are concerning to me...but not so concerning as to entertain the logistical alternative.
I'm not interested in getting into a repeat of the previous pages with you, Scott.
So I'll do what I was doing earlier for now; sit back, and let time tell what will happen.
Because really, I can't vote in the US since I live in Finland, and I don't like either candidate that much.
I just find it hilarious that some people have seriously compared Trump to Hitler. I'm Jewish, and I really doubt he'd be even nearly that bad.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong on that front. Maybe the anti-Trump people will be proven wrong. I have little personal investment in this at the end of the day, and I prefer to keep it that way.
So only people who oppose Clinton politically would criticize her?
I know you said "largely" as in "not all" but that still sounds like you'd paint most (if not all) the naysayers with the same brush, more or less.
...Perhaps it would be clearer if I said it like this?
"I am not aware of any significant accusations against her that have not come either directly from her political opponents or from people strongly associated with said opponents, such as clearly conservative-leaning news outlets or people whose primary source of information is said political opponents. Like all political candidates, she is subject to intense scrutiny on a regular basis - and while people on both sides of the aisle may disagree with her, differences in policy preferences should not be treated the same as things like accusations of outright criminal behavior."
He's not running. He isn't even running as a write in. You can write him in if you want, but it has no more effect than writing in your own name. Or Mickey Mouse.Hitdice --
I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.
Yes ... and no.
Let us theorize a bit.
Basis 1: Gobs of left-leaning voters hate Clinton and Trump enough that they write-in votes for Bernie Sanders. He was an eligible candidate but he didn't get the nomination.
Basis 2: A whole gaggle of right-leaning voters hate Trump and Clinton enough that they write-in votes for, oh, Jeb Bush. An eligible candidate that didn't get the nomination.
Basis 3: both happen this election.
If a few hundred thousand to about a million do this, it's a blip on the election radar, tsk-tsk'ing is bandied about and the world goes on.
If twenty million voters evenly split along major party lines do this, each party has ten million registered voters telling the world that their candidates suck an egg so bad that they'd rather 'throw away' their vote on a nomination contender than vote for a candidate they dislike for whatever reason.
What are the implications of so many disgruntled voters expressing themselves in this fashion? Are they a 'disgruntled minority', is it a resounding message to the 'party establishments' that they suck eggs, or is it something else?
If enough write-ins were to occur that the popular votes for the written-in candidates exceeded the nominated candidates, what are the implications?
In a way, write-in votes are the best result for the major parties as those disgruntled voters didn't "throw away" their votes on the oft-maligned 'third parties'. Enough such votes (depending on where) would see electoral college votes awarded to third party candidates.
Thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FICA taxes are paid on net income, not gross, for small businesses. If I have a nice enough year to significantly (rather than marginally) exceed the $118.5k threshold for 2016, I'm in a 3-4% higher federal income tax bracket. Because of that bracket, I prefer to avoid it unless things are shaping up to jump significantly higher than the baseline federal tax rate for that net income bracket. If you barely squeak into the bracket, you lose money compared to if you were just a bit lower, falling into the upper range of the bracket below.No. Talk to a tax accountant.
Tax rates are marginal. You do not lose money by reaching a higher bracket. Even for business taxes. If the 4% higher bracket starts at $150K and you make $155K, you only pay that extra 4% on the last $5K, not the whole $150K
*crunches numbers* You're right!
At first, you're paying the same at the top of the previous bracket as you do at the bottom of the next bracket. My math-mistake! At a casual glance it looks like a somewhat larger tax amount %-wise in terms of percentage of the whole. Hrmmmm ...might make an expansion worth the while if some useful incentives come down the pike.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are these yours, my good man?
I found them in the drive.♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
*squees* :)
I'm not interested in getting into a repeat of the previous pages with you, Scott.
That's fine, but don't take part of the discussion from those previous pages, twist it, then post it as a new, snide criticism.
I just find it hilarious that some people have seriously compared Trump to Hitler. I'm Jewish, and I really doubt he'd be even nearly that bad.
He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
If twenty million voters evenly split along major party lines do this, each party has ten million registered voters telling the world that their candidates suck an egg so bad that they'd rather 'throw away' their vote on a nomination contender than vote for a candidate they dislike for whatever reason.
What are the implications of so many disgruntled voters expressing themselves in this fashion?
Largely nothing. In many jurisdictions, write-in votes are not even counted, because it's such a hassle to distinguish between votes for Mickey Mouse, Mikey Mouse, and Micky Mouse (are those even the same people?). If someone were actually to make a fuss about it (or if it appeared that the write-in votes appeared to have a shot at a plurality) "they" would go through and do the work (probably taking weeks), but in general, write-ins just go into the same pile as the spoiled ballots.
So it's not clear to me that twenty million random write-in votes would even be noticed....
Yes ... and no.
Let us theorize a bit.
Basis 1: Gobs of left-leaning voters hate Clinton and Trump enough that they write-in votes for Bernie Sanders. He was an eligible candidate but he didn't get the nomination.
Basis 2: A whole gaggle of right-leaning voters hate Trump and Clinton enough that they write-in votes for, oh, Jeb Bush. An eligible candidate that didn't get the nomination. I'm not willing to use one of the ones that made it to the RNC. Just not going there. ;)
Basis 3: both happen this election.
If a few hundred thousand to about a million do this, it's a blip on the election radar, tsk-tsk'ing is bandied about and the world goes on.
If twenty million voters evenly split along major party lines do this, each party has ten million registered voters telling the world that their candidates suck an egg so bad that they'd rather 'throw away' their vote on a nomination contender than vote for a candidate they dislike for whatever reason.
What are the implications of so many disgruntled voters expressing themselves in this fashion? Are they a 'disgruntled minority', is it a resounding message to the 'party establishments' that they suck eggs, or is it something else?
If enough write-ins were to occur that the popular votes for the written-in candidates exceeded the nominated candidates, what are the implications?
In a way, write-in votes are the best result for the major parties as those disgruntled voters didn't "throw away" their votes on the oft-maligned 'third parties'. Enough such votes (depending on where) would see electoral college votes awarded to third party candidates.
Thoughts?
Game theory is the reason this will never happen.
Let's say each individual voter has two potentially beneficial options, for the purpose of this discussion:
1) They vote for the major party candidate of their choice.
2) They vote for the third party/write-in candidate of their choice.
There are a number of ways this can play out (not all equally plausible):
1) Our voter votes for a major party candidate, and nearly all other voters vote for major party candidates. Third-party and write-in votes wind up unremarkable. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the chances of his candidate winning the popular vote.
2) Our voter votes for a major party candidate, but a lot of other voters vote for third-party/write-in candidates. Third-party and write-in votes are remarkable in number. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the chances of his candidate winning the popular vote.
3) Our voter votes for a third-party/write-in candidate, but nearly all other voters vote for major party candidates. Third-party and write-in votes wind up unremarkable. Our voter has accomplished nothing meaningful.
4) Our voter votes for a third-party/write-in candidate, and a lot of other voters vote for third-party/write-in candidates. Third-party and write-in votes are remarkable in number. Our voter has ever so slightly increased the degree to which those votes are remarkable.
Far and away, outcomes 1, 2, and 3 are the most likely. Because each voter considers his action on an individual basis, the likelihood of outcome 4 taking place is very, very low. Our voter is only incentivized to vote third-party/write-in if he knows that many, many other voters are going to vote third-party/write-in, but he has no reliable way of knowing that (history certainly doesn't favor it). Just as in the Prisoner's Dilemma, cooperation leads to a more favorable outcome, but uncertainty and an inability to perfectly communicate with all actors makes that an unattractive choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly not Jeb.
Every time someone mentions Jeb, the "Please clap" moment plays in my head and I suddenly feel really awkward and sad.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not interested in getting into a repeat of the previous pages with you, Scott.
So I'll do what I was doing earlier for now; sit back, and let time tell what will happen.
Because really, I can't vote in the US since I live in Finland, and I don't like either candidate that much.
I just find it hilarious that some people have seriously compared Trump to Hitler. I'm Jewish, and I really doubt he'd be even nearly that bad.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong on that front. Maybe the anti-Trump people will be proven wrong. I have little personal investment in this at the end of the day, and I prefer to keep it that way.
Just people thinking they are higher and mighty then someone else. They don't care in the end. Some say yea they want your opinion, but then are waiting to push the button to drop you in the pool of 40 sharks.
I keep being asked to put my thoughts in here, but why. I'm told several things I like paint me as a bigot here, as well, from my understanding a racist. It's pretty hard to speak from a position where the crowd is kind of calling what ever idea you have terrible before you say it. Less fun when it's 1 vs 50 to some form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why reply to me on that front? I am well-aware of what had gone down, but that's exactly why I won't do that song and dance routine a second time.
"And will you be voting for the Giant Douche, or the Turd Sandwich" - pollster on Southpark episode "Member Berries".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do however want to say that I will laugh myself to tears if Trump wins and he actually manages to change things for the better. The sheer dumbfounded looks of so many people is just hilarious to imagine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not be surprised if a comparable list of Clinton dishonesty would be dismissed as being unfounded (or worse, conspiracy theories), or coming from an unreliable source.
The source here is Trump, on camera, talking.
Or his own twitter feeds.
Yet a lot of people do not seem to trust Hillary Clinton all that much. Now why is that a thing?
Because she's a politician
She's not a particularly likable politicianAnd most importantly because she's a politician that's had an entire political machine including an news network dedicated to making up stuff to say about her , 24 7, for the last 15 years.
They do this, largely, by having an "opinion" piece saying something that isn't true, and then have the "news" piece talking about people talking about that opinion as if that opinion MUST have some validity, kind of like what you're doing now.
Peoples perceptions are not an argument for a position.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I wonder how many here believe anyone that voted "Leave" in Brexit is a horrible person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I'm down to my last 10' pole.
What are you swinging poles around for? You could poke someone's eye out with that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep being asked to put my thoughts in here, but why. I'm told several things I like paint me as a bigot here, as well, from my understanding a racist.
Like what? What things that you support do you believe paint you as a bigot or a racist?
And really, we're not demanding that you share with us. We're asking you to please either participate meaningfully in the discussion, or go do something else. Because so far you haven't really done anything but insult people and complain about the thread - basically the definition of threadcrapping. We'd be happy to talk about the election with you, but if that's not what you're here for then this isn't the thread for you.
I do however want to say that I will laugh myself to tears if Trump wins and he actually manages to change things for the better. The sheer dumbfounded looks of so many people is just hilarious to imagine.As I said above: "Logically speaking any statement that starts with "If false, ..." is a true statement."
Of course, it also depends on what you think of as "change things for the better". I'm sure the alt-right will approve of many things he'll try to do.
Honestly, given his history (both recent and distant) and given how his campaign has begun shifting slowly on issues to try to pander to more and more voters, I expect Trump would be a significantly more left-leaning president than his main voter base believes. Obviously that's in no way an endorsement of him, nor any reason to even consider voting for him, but it's at least some small reason not to sweat bullets just yet.
Thanks for the insights on the theoretical write-in post, gentlecritters.
To be clear, it was meant as exactly that. Not a "smoosh Clinton" or "smoosh Trump" jab.
Presently, I'm inclined to wait for the first and subsequent TV debates to occur.
At this point I need to see and hear the candidates go to work on the three large canvas issues the moderator(s) have proposed and how they go about responding to those issues.
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.
Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.
Why do so many people believe all the bad things republicans say about the democratic presidential nominee but readily dismiss all the bad things republicans say about the republican presidential nominee?
If the bad things republicans say were so easily dismissed, why would someone who leans more to Trump be so easily dismissed on this very topic as merely a bigot and/or racist?
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.
Third debate maybe it is then. :)
We'd "cut the cord" a while back, using purely streaming feed. Ordering an HD antenna for the main TV specifically to watch these debates. Side effect will be access to football, the election coverage and inauguration coverage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the bad things republicans say were so easily dismissed, why would someone who leans more to Trump be so easily dismissed on this very topic as merely a bigot and/or racist?
Because when an arguably racist guy who is ostensibly on your team looks at the stuff you're doing and says, "Damn, that's really racist - even I can't get behind that!" it tends to turn heads.
I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.Third debate maybe it is then. :)
We'd "cut the cord" a while back, using purely streaming feed. Ordering an HD antenna for the main TV specifically to watch these debates. Side effect will be access to football, the election coverage and inauguration coverage.
Bear in mind that all three debates are being streamed online, for free, no antenna or cable required.
Bear in mind that all three debates are being streamed online, for free, no antenna or cable required.I'd really like to see at least one third party candidate make the second TV debate.Given the short span of time between debates, and given that there probably isn't any other major event that's going to cause a major shift in polls (it would require the electorate to have an absolute crisis of confidence in one or both candidates), I'd say this has basically no chance of happening. The third debate, maaaaybe. But there just isn't enough time for the effects of the first debate to cause the polling averages for third party candidates to leap up before the cutoff for the second debate.Third debate maybe it is then. :)
We'd "cut the cord" a while back, using purely streaming feed. Ordering an HD antenna for the main TV specifically to watch these debates. Side effect will be access to football, the election coverage and inauguration coverage.
Shhhh! Don't let Missus Turin hear you saying that or I'll lose out on the spiffy new antenna! :)
Honestly, given his history (both recent and distant) and given how his campaign has begun shifting slowly on issues to try to pander to more and more voters, I expect Trump would be a significantly more left-leaning president than his main voter base believes. Obviously that's in no way an endorsement of him, nor any reason to even consider voting for him, but it's at least some small reason not to sweat bullets just yet.I do however want to say that I will laugh myself to tears if Trump wins and he actually manages to change things for the better. The sheer dumbfounded looks of so many people is just hilarious to imagine.As I said above: "Logically speaking any statement that starts with "If false, ..." is a true statement."
Of course, it also depends on what you think of as "change things for the better". I'm sure the alt-right will approve of many things he'll try to do.
Honestly, given his history and his general incoherence on any kind of policy, I suspect he'd be an even worse president than most on the left believe.
The racism and sexism are both part of his deep history and his current rhetoric. Other than that, I'd agree he's not an orthodox conservative. If he wins though, he'll be governing with a Republican Congress and getting his advice from a Republican cabinet. He's said he'll outsource most of the actual detail work to Pence - who is a doctrinaire conservative and also has the "religious freedom" gay bashing credentials.
He's shown himself to be completely out of his depth when it comes to any actual policy - especially foreign policy. He often sounds like he's got no idea of the actual powers and responsibilities of the office. He's going to be constantly in conflict with Congress if he can't just bully them around.
I suspect he'd be mostly an absentee president - letting Pence handle the boring stuff and thus actually run everything - just occasionally stepping in to screw...
It gets worse than nuclear holocaust? That's the general consensus I've been thus far able to pull from most on the left (although that may be due to where I live).
It's not so much that he's an unorthodox conservative, so much as he's an extreme moderate at best (has both favored and opposed gay marriage, abortion, and mixed that in with the sexist and racist rhetoric) and completely amorphous at worst (which is what I suspect to be the more likely case), meaning not much of a conservative at all. I definitely agree that he sounds as though he's blissfully unaware of the actual role and powers delegated to the president (South Park's season opener played on that pretty well) but don't necessarily agree that he'd be constantly in conflict with Congress. He seems much more like he would just capitulate if presented with too much resistance (remember that he's only opposed the Republican party leaders due to the backing of the party voters, which I'm not sure would be in any position to support similar headbutting during a presidency). Now whether or not that's a good thing to you is dependent entirely on: 1) the composition of Congress as a whole at the time (I'd much prefer if neither party had a super majority in either legislative body) and 2) your political leanings. Given this board's tendencies, I'm guessing that would be a big negative if the Republicans did end up with such a strong showing in the House and Senate.