2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Brian? · 02-10-2016 11:47PM

oik wrote: »

Candidates should interrupt one another. They should both be knocked off their scripts.

No they shouldn't. A stronger moderator would have snuffed it out. Holt was killing himself being impartial while Trump acted the loud mouth brat.

This may come as a surprise but a moderator is not just there to ask questions, they're there to enforce the rules. Without moderation the whole thing would descend into a shouting match. Which is what you seem to want.

ancapailldorcha · 02-10-2016 11:56PM

Raise the standard of posting please.

oik · 02-10-2016 11:57PM

Brian?

What about Clinton's constant interruptions when debating Sanders?

Was that childish, Overheal?

Just note, that they overcounted some of Trump's interruptions.

He said "wrong" a few times while she was bending the truth, but he didn't stop her from talking or cut across her. He just took some of the sting out of her shaky attacks.

She also interrupted him 17 times. Not an insignificant number of interruptions. So you'd have to look at the substance of the interruptions to get the real story. Simply counting them doesn't tell you much of value.

oik · 03-10-2016 12:01AM

No thanks. I'm on the phone.

Well then. I'm not discussing the debate with you until you've had a chance to look at it.

InTheTrees · 03-10-2016 12:19AM

oik wrote: »

It's not the people avoiding tax who are the problem. The law is the problem. Who makes the law?

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years after losing nine hundred million dollars is a problem for the electorate.

oik · 03-10-2016 12:23AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years after losing nine hundred million dollars is a problem for the electorate.

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 12:27AM

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

Trent Houseboat · 03-10-2016 12:30AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

In fairness you can't paint that just on his "smartness" in not paying tax. I could have been almost anything he said during the debate.

FISMA. · 03-10-2016 12:34AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Trump not paying tax for over 15 years...

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 12:36AM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

In fairness you can't paint that just on his "smartness" in not paying tax. I could have been almost anything he said during the debate.

It's definitely a combination of everything, but to suggest that in the current climate of this election (jobs, economy, the whole 99% vs 1% thing more alive than ever, and so on) that the undecideds won't care about someone who claims to have billions bragging about not paying any taxes (then lying about having never said so, right after) is... well I'll be diplomatic and say it's unrealistic.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 12:39AM

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

You claim to speak for independents now?

Overheal · 03-10-2016 12:40AM

FISMA. wrote: »

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

And no federal income tax, a phrase glaringly left out of his attorneys statement.

InTheTrees · 03-10-2016 12:51AM

oik wrote: »

So far it's a problem for the talking heads in the media. We'll see if it's a problem for the electorate.

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Voters understand who ultimately has to pay for tax breaks given to trump.

Thats the problem. It damaged Romney badly in 2012 when it was revealed he was only paying 12%.

And now it turns out trump isnt paying any at all. And all because he managed to lose 900 million in 1995.

InTheTrees · 03-10-2016 12:54AM

FISMA. wrote: »

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Okay. So in your opinion he's paid enough???

I think I've paid enough too.

Trent Houseboat · 03-10-2016 01:01AM

Billy86 wrote: »

It's definitely a combination of everything, but to suggest that in the current climate of this election (jobs, economy, the whole 99% vs 1% thing more alive than ever, and so on) that the undecideds won't care about someone who claims to have billions bragging about not paying any taxes (then lying about having never said so, right after) is... well I'll be diplomatic and say it's unrealistic.

I just meant that he sounded like a disgrace throughout. Not to imply that he was competent enough to fasten his own oversized suit.

oik · 03-10-2016 01:03AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Voters understand who ultimately has to pay for tax breaks given to trump.

Thats the problem. It damaged Romney badly in 2012 when it was revealed he was only paying 12%.

And now it turns out trump isnt paying any at all. And all because he managed to lose 900 million in 1995.

The voters understanding is far less shallow than you're making out.

Trump has maintained from the very beginning that he pays as little tax as legally possible.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. This could be another Trump ruse. He might end up releasing the last few years tax returns showing that he did pay tax, and thanks to the Clinton's accusing him of paying zero, expectations will be low so that no matter what rate he pays it will seem like enough.

My guess is, he knew the tax return issue would come up, I find it highly unlikely he didn't plan for it in some way.

oik · 03-10-2016 01:06AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

vetinari · 03-10-2016 01:10AM

FISMA. wrote: »

Wrong.

Point of fact, he has paid tens of millions in taxes. Maybe, hundreds of millions over those 15 years and still donated to charity.

He has paid: property tax, sales tax, social security tax, state tax, county tax, and local taxes, to name a few.

That's enough for me.

Did you get to see his tax returns FISMA?
Odds are he's paid no federal tax for the last decade at least!
No wonder he won't release his tax returns.
He's got to be the biggest chancer that has ever run for president!
Hey vote for me, I'm a billionaire who doesn't pay federal taxes!

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 01:59AM

oik wrote: »

Well, no.

Trump has never destroyed evidence under subpoena and his public and private life are two different things.

If you want to argue that his conduct in regards to his tax returns, which are totally confidential and he is under no obligation to release are indicative of how he would behave in relation to subpoenaed evidence you have an uphill struggle

I know from my perspective, I'm not showing anyone my bank statement or my tax returns or even my boards.ie password no matter what office I'm seeking.

But if I received a warrant or subpoena for any of these things I would comply immediately.

You have to establish why both of these scenarios (obligation/no obligation) are the same.

Sorry but as you said...

oik wrote: »

There's no difference when it comes to matter of principle.

And what public offices have you ran for, out of interest?

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 02:08AM

oik wrote: »

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-whomps-debate-reactions-trumps-unfavorability-edges-poll/story?id=42498052
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/02/poll-clinton-wins-debate-with-more-saying-trump-got-facts-wrong/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-after-debate-fear-motivating-both-sides.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-post-debate-polls-228984
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/upshot/no-debate-that-hillary-clintons-polling-numbers-are-improving.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/clinton-resurgent-trump-stalls-in-post-debate-polls/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

There have been plenty of polls, they have been one of the major talking points of the week both on this forum and in the news, even Fox and Rasumussen have her gaining on the back of the first debate. Even supporters of Trump and his advisors have been saying the debate went badly and have hurt him Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

oik · 03-10-2016 02:17AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

Look at the post you just quoted. Nice reading comprehension.

Based on the links you just showed me (which you clearly didn't examine yourself), there isn't much post debate polling data out yet. Most polls are conducted at the weekend, so they won't all be out until Monday at the earliest.

oik · 03-10-2016 02:23AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Sorry but as you said...

I did say that, in relation to a completely different topic and completely different principle.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 02:24AM

What is your methodology then for deciding which principles are important?

oik · 03-10-2016 02:25AM

Overheal wrote: »

What is your methodology then for deciding which principles are important?

What makes you think the relative importance of principle is at issue here?

Overheal · 03-10-2016 02:26AM

oik wrote: »

What makes you think the relative importance of principle is at issue here?

You said it was. You even bolded it.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 02:26AM

oik wrote: »

Look at the post you just quoted. Nice reading comprehension.

Let me remind you of the conversation to this point...

oik wrote: »

This sounds like one of those things that only interests partisans, while independents shrug their shoulders.

Billy86 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention to the polls this week?

oik wrote: »

There isn't much polling data to go on, and a Clinton bump was to be expected based on her winning the debate and the post debate spin.

Billy86 wrote: »

<links to polling data>

There have been plenty of polls, they have been one of the major talking points of the week both on this forum and in the news, even Fox and Rasumussen have her gaining on the back of the first debate. Even supporters of Trump and his advisors have been saying the debate went badly and have hurt him Your denial of reality on this matter is frankly odd, and is fooling nobody.

Alright I have to ask... are you on a wind up?

Just saw your bit about there not being many polls in the links... let me make this very simple for you - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

oik · 03-10-2016 02:27AM

For Billy and Overheal

There is a difference of principle between destroying subpoenaed evidence and not releasing confidential information when you are not legally obliged to.

Please respond s I know you understand.

oik · 03-10-2016 02:29AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Let me remind you of the conversation to this point...

Alright I have to ask... are you on a wind up?

Just because polls have changed doesn't mean independents care about the one issue you're choosing to emphasise at this point. The debate touched upon a number of issues that could have swayed the polls.

If you're feeling wound up it could be because you're having trouble with reading comprehension.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 02:29AM

oik wrote: »

For Billy and Overheal

There is a difference of principle between destroying subpoenaed evidence and not releasing confidential information.

Please respond s I know you understand.

Do you understand the difference between 2 dollars and 900 million dollars?

Seriously, you're delving into the land of performance art at this point.

oik · 03-10-2016 02:31AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between 2 dollars and 900 million dollars?

Seriously, you're delving into the land of performance art at this point.

So you accept there is a principled difference between the two concepts and now you're resorting to differences of magnitude we touched upon on a previous unrelated topic as a deflection tactic?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments