The 2016 US American Election Thread

[troutman]

Quite the noon hour for Trump - all in the last hour:

Trump Foundation ordered to stop fundraising

Apprentice Insiders blast Trump's sexist behavior

Trump says only weak veterans get PTSD

Trump ditched US Steel

Trump suggests burning down White House for insurance proceeds

NY Times got Trump's tax returns

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by troutman

Quite the noon hour for Trump - all in the last hour:

Trump Foundation ordered to stop fundraising

Apprentice Insiders blast Trump's sexist behavior

Trump says only weak veterans get PTSD

Trump ditched US Steel

Trump suggests burning down White House for insurance proceeds

NY Times got Trump's tax returns

In fairness, that report, I believe, is from The New Yorker's Borowitz Report. It is satire.

The rest is legit as far as I know.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I mean, it says something when you can't tell satire from reality.

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump says only weak veterans get PTSD

This one stood out to me as a "come on, no way he said that" so I looked up his actual quote, apparently speaking to a veterans' group in Virgina... and is that an accurate summary of his statement? Well...

Originally Posted by Trump

When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in the room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it.

I mean, that is just some epic level spin right there. He definitely did not say anything of the sort.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

it does not "disqualify" him, but don't get on the bully pulpit and yell about how much you care and how much your opponent is ruining their industry. If you're not going to support them when you can, your credibility is in question if you promise you'll flip the switch to caring after the election

But he can't support them. It wouldn't be good business practice. He is backed by a bunch of hedgefund money that would dictate certain contracting practices.

Essentially you disqualify business people from running if you require all of their actions be made in the best interests of America. Business people should make their decisions based on the self-interest of their businesses.

The real problem with his trade policy is that it will be destructive to the economy. Not that as a business person he followed the current trade policies of the country.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by GGG

I hate the arguememt that trump the businessman should have bought American. He bought from the lowest priced quality source. That's what he should be doing. It's the same as the tax argument. He should be reducing his taxes by any legal means.

These shouldn't be reasons he's not qualified to be president.

What makes anyone think that Trump as President is going to enact policies that affect his bottom line or his tax responsibilities? That's really the issue at stake here. Nothing he did was illegal, with regards to this tax returns or avoiding buying US Steel.

But is he really going to enact policies that means he has to pay more for US manufactured goods, which limits his profit margins? Is he going to change the tax code in a way that would prevent people like him from avoiding taxes for nearly 2 decades after one monumentally bad year?

Why on earth would he, as President, promote things that would cost him millions of dollars? He's proven that he'll find any and every loophole imaginable to avoid paying out what he owes, is that magically going to change because he's elected President?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, it says something when you can't tell satire from reality.

This one stood out to me as a "come on, no way he said that" so I looked up his actual quote, apparently speaking to a veterans' group in Virgina... and is that an accurate summary of his statement? Well...

I mean, that is just some epic level spin right there. He definitely did not say anything of the sort.

It was still pretty dumb. IT has nothing to do with strength of the individual and what they can handle. I know that doesn't mean he is calling PTSD sufferers weak, but it still shows a lack of knowledge about the issue. Every soldier has different experiences and some not getting PTSD could just mean that they didn't see the same things. And sometimes people "handle" some pretty grave stuff and then it is one event that is relatively benign in isolation that puts them over the top.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, that is just some epic level spin right there. He definitely did not say anything of the sort.

He said you're strong and can handle it. They couldn't. That is indeed calling such people weak even if that wasn't the intent.

And the real problem isn't so much that insinuation of weak or not or not being to handle it. The problem is to characterize mental illness in that manner shows you have no idea what mental illness is all about. It's not about strong or being able to handle it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

What makes anyone think that Trump as President is going to enact policies that affect his bottom line or his tax responsibilities? That's really the issue at stake here. Nothing he did was illegal, with regards to this tax returns or avoiding buying US Steel.

But is he really going to enact policies that means he has to pay more for US manufactured goods, which limits his profit margins? Is he going to change the tax code in a way that would prevent people like him from avoiding taxes for nearly 2 decades after one monumentally bad year?

Why on earth would he, as President, promote things that would cost him millions of dollars? He's proven that he'll find any and every loophole imaginable to avoid paying out what he owes, is that magically going to change because he's elected President?

This is a different argument then the one the press is making. This is Trump is a liar who will never implement the policies he is campaigning on. I would agree with using this as evidence for that line of argument rather than Trump is a hypocrite. What's funny though is pointing our false hypocracy is probably more effective than actual nuanced conversation about issues.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GGG

I hate the arguememt that trump the businessman should have bought American. He bought from the lowest priced quality source. That's what he should be doing. It's the same as the tax argument. He should be reducing his taxes by any legal means.

These shouldn't be reasons he's not qualified to be president.

The other angle for the taxes is that maybe he is poser. Claims to be a smart billionaire, but is actually a dumb massive failure.
We are hearing that the banks keep bailing him out because it's less damaging that letting his go full bankrupt. Too big to fail. He is holding them hostage.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is a great article on the tax returns, and can easily be applied to how he'll handle trade

By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.

To give you the brief version, people who qualify as real estate developers or managers can use depreciation deductions to offset non-real-estate income. But people who don’t qualify for this special treatment can’t do that. (For full details, ask a tax expert about Section 469 of the tax code.)

Now, to the $900-plus million loss reported by the New York Times — which vastly exceeds any cash losses that Trump would have suffered in the collapse of his casino-hotel-airline empire, which fell apart in the early 1990s and resulted in four bankruptcies. (He had two more bankruptcies, in 2004 and 2009, from a publicly traded company in which he was the primary shareholder.)

I’m guessing, but I can’t tell for sure — there’s not enough information — that the loss has to do with the collapse of his empire. I don’t understand how Trump, who had very little of his own cash invested in his projects in the 1990s but did personally guarantee part of their debt, could end up with tax losses of that magnitude. They’re almost certainly paper losses rather than out-of-pocket losses.

It’s possible that those losses somehow vanished into the ether from which they came — we have no way to tell.

If Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.

I have plenty of problems with the Clintons’ financial behavior, as I wrote. But at least Hillary Clinton is proposing tax code changes that would cost her and her family money. Trump, by contrast, is proposing tax changes that would greatly benefit the commercial real estate business, which is his primary field, and would greatly benefit his own family. And when I asked his campaign last week whether he was proposing any tax changes that would cost him and/or his family any money, I got no reply.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...business_pop_b

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GGG

But he can't support them. It wouldn't be good business practice. He is backed by a bunch of hedgefund money that would dictate certain contracting practices.

Essentially you disqualify business people from running if you require all of their actions be made in the best interests of America. Business people should make their decisions based on the self-interest of their businesses.

The real problem with his trade policy is that it will be destructive to the economy. Not that as a business person he followed the current trade policies of the country.

Sorry you are incorrect. Companies make the decision to buy american all the time even if it's not in the best financial interest for them to do so. They also make things in the US despite it costing more.

This is especially true of companies that do not have obligations to share holders but even publicly traded companies also follow this. I work for a fortune 500 company that has made the very explicit choice to remain in the US, manufacture in the US and have the bulk of their employees in the US. I have no doubt we could make a heck of a lot more money doing things differently. But we don't because community and social aspects of our company are very important and part of our core principles and beliefs.

[GirlySports]

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It was still pretty dumb. IT has nothing to do with strength of the individual and what they can handle. I know that doesn't mean he is calling PTSD sufferers weak, but it still shows a lack of knowledge about the issue. Every soldier has different experiences and some not getting PTSD could just mean that they didn't see the same things. And sometimes people "handle" some pretty grave stuff and then it is one event that is relatively benign in isolation that puts them over the top.

Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me suggesting he's not dumb. The statement reveals a lack of understanding of how PTSD works that puts PTSD in the same column as most everything else he comments on. This is just one more area he's obviously totally clueless about. The more he speaks, the more he reveals about what he doesn't know. The ignorance is astounding.

That being said, it wasn't in any way a suggestion that people who suffer from PTSD are weak. In fact from reading it it seems like he was trying to be compassionate and say "some people come home and can adjust, and some can't". Compare that to what he said about John McCain - "He's a hero because he was captured, I prefer people who weren't captured". Now that is some callous, disrespectful stuff. This, not so much.

It's really irritating to me that people want to turn every issue that should be about "Trump knows nothing about anything and has elevated ignorance into an art form," into "look what a terrible person Trump is, shame him, shame!"

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean, it says something when you can't tell satire from reality.

This one stood out to me as a "come on, no way he said that" so I looked up his actual quote, apparently speaking to a veterans' group in Virgina... and is that an accurate summary of his statement? Well...

I mean, that is just some epic level spin right there. He definitely did not say anything of the sort.

Yeah, that's really reaching. It's an incredibly ignorant way of discussing the issue, but I don't think he meant it that way. He did actually say that PTSD sufferers aren't as strong as those who don't have it, but it's kind of spun for sure

[Matata]

I've gotten so sucked in to the election drama that I actually started to think it matters who the president is. If I were american, I'd vote libertarian as a protest vote and call it a day.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Matata

I've gotten so sucked in to the election drama that I actually started to think it matters who the president is. If I were american, I'd vote libertarian as a protest vote and call it a day.

The Supreme court totally matters.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by Drak

The Supreme court totally matters.

Thank-you. Any sane person who wants to vote for Trump as a big f-you to the man should consider the virtual theocracy that could result from a stacked Conservative SCOTUS. This should be taken seriously. A more progressive Supreme Court in the United States benefits all Americans, and by extension all North Americans, and may be the most effective way to undo the gerrymandering that has created the worst do nothing dirtbag Congress in history.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ernie

Sorry you are incorrect. Companies make the decision to buy american all the time even if it's not in the best financial interest for them to do so. They also make things in the US despite it costing more.

This is especially true of companies that do not have obligations to share holders but even publicly traded companies also follow this. I work for a fortune 500 company that has made the very explicit choice to remain in the US, manufacture in the US and have the bulk of their employees in the US. I have no doubt we could make a heck of a lot more money doing things differently. But we don't because community and social aspects of our company are very important and part of our core principles and beliefs.

Usually it is motivated by something other than good will. Whether it be reputation, security of supply, currying municipal or government tax breaks, etc. I would be surprised if any thorough review of the decision just states it's the right thing to do.

[octothorp]

So what do you guys figure the odds are of Wikileaks / Assange / Stone releasing some sort of bombshell in the next couple days? Assange is set to make some major announcement tomorrow (1am our time I think). Stone says in reference to wikileaks that Clinton's campaign will be finished on Wednesday. Certainly a lot of Trump boosters on comment sections seem to be waiting with bated breath. Personally, I think there's a lot of misinterpretation regarding Assange's comments going back to the summer, and Stone is just guilty of wishful thinking while trying to deflect from Trump's awful week.

But we'll see. If no bombshells come out in the next couple days, then they simply aren't coming out; because really if you wait any longer, it may be too late to save Trump's campaign.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

Usually it is motivated by something other than good will. Whether it be reputation, security of supply, currying municipal or government tax breaks, etc. I would be surprised if any thorough review of the decision just states it's the right thing to do.

You'd think a guy wanting to run for President on a platform of bringing jobs back to the US, this might be an important factor. He keeps saying he'll run government like he runs his businesses. Well...