[colliric]

I can't wait till Donald Trump throws Alicia Machado's name back in Clinton's smug face at the next debate.

She threatened to kill a Judge and was accused of assisting in a Murder. And admitted it on Andersen Cooper(lol, He's modding the next one right?). What a model Citizen, a great bastion of womanhood!

Even had sex on free to air TV....
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.the ... d-optus-au

[BoneAmi]

^

Trump didn't say he was going to lower taxes on the wealthy; he didn't say "I'm going to lower taxes for the richest 1% like myself," or even the richest 5% like Hillary. He said he was going to lower corporate taxes. Because our 35% corporate tax rate does nothing more but encourage corporations to either invest to take advantage of loopholes, or move their headquarters and income overseas. The working-class - those that work for corporations - in light of ever increasing debt burden, have been saying this for at least forty years now: Our corporations DO NOT pay taxes.

And I have news for you: Hillary is not raising taxes on the rich; every time such bills are presented in Congress they are soundly defeated. Hillary is the very last person I would expect to raise taxes on the rich; her husband sits at the epicenter to convene with world's richest, for financial gain. Just the offshore LLCs alone are incredible; there are thousands of them that exist for but one purpose: to hide financial transactions.

My grandfather was but one generation removed from the farm - thousands of acres that still exist today - but he was a very smart man. And I can remember him discussing these things in 1970; Trump's "thirty years" is an understatement; it's been well over forty years that we've been discussing, debating, this very same subject.

Wasn't it Hillary as Senator from New York who expanded the ethanol subsidies? And why do they exist at all? Well, because two congressman - two congressman - were heavily invested, and so an industry born of legislative fiat, to the detriment of the American people.

And again "they" offer green jobs? Obama promised "green" and eight years later Americans are still unemployed, and increasingly over-burdened.

I look around my house, virtually every item that I have purchased over the last twenty-five years, was manufactured overseas. Collectively these items, all purchased very cheaply, for literally for pennies on the dollar, represents millions of jobs lost to foreign manufacturers, many American owned. The loss of revenue alone must be in the trillions.

Trump is right, we have incredible debt; we are debtor nation, and we have politicians that are absolutely stifling growth in this country to the order of trillions, while simultaneously demanding more of the people. It's sickening, it's disgusting; these are despicable people. And the only ones who support them are those who intend to directly profit. You better continue to fully indoctrinate the children now, because within but one or two generations, they're going to demand your heads. And a freely awarded piece of paper, freely gained, thus of zero value, stamped "educated," is not going to satiate them, or save you.

[BoneAmi]

I have to laugh to at the Left which, in an effort to appeal, frequently alludes to the vision of our forefathers. The vision of America, the "New Israel," was never a status-free or unstratified society, it was one of democracy; a society, born out in compacts, where "none shall be placed one above the other." Legalesse, a mission of "equality"; yearly elections, town meetings, to ensure that all affairs were decided in democratic fashion by the people. Today, a "Nation of Law," and why do these laws exist at all? Well, precisely because we are a diverse people, and we always were, for the first time in hundreds of years new communities were forming from peoples gathered from all parts of the British Isles. if not for this diversity, community censure itself would have sufficed to settle community affairs. So these were not new ideas, or ideals, that fell from the sky in 1776; those like Adam Smith merely lend credence, aid to articulate, that which had existed in the cultural mindset for well over 150 years. So I laugh at the Left when they allude to the forefathers with the mention of "Enlightenment" and Adam Smith; I doubt that a single one of them has ever touched on even the surface of an American history; they haven't got a clue.

[SpecialOlympian]

Yes, Colliric, nothing will make Trump look better than continuing a pointless feud with a woman that started 20 years ago. And after he brings it up he can call her fat again.

Trump is dumb and goes after the most obvious bait. Hillary should mention Rosie O'Donnell and let Trump rant about her for 40 minutes.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

A ten year period would actually make it more like 0.004% of the Chicago population died as a result of crime per year. We're starting to enter hit-by-lightning territory here.



First this was about American inner-cities.

Then it was about violent inner-cities.

Then it was about Chicago.

Now it's about certain, "deprived areas," in Chicago.

It's about anywhere gun crime is committed it just so happens much of it seems to be highly concentrated in many of Americas inner cities and in the suburbs to some extent.

The bottom line is that crime is going down, and it was never as bad as politicians and Hollywood made it look. It just wasn't.

According to the stats some American cities such as Baltimore and St.Louie are amongst the highest in the world for Homicides. 400 hundred gun deaths a year is high even for a population of 10million and as I've said it's not spread out over the ten million, it's disproportionately high in certain lower class areas.

Americans who talk about Europe without having spent considerable time there are full of shit. The same is true in the reverse, because it's hard to grasp some things that are contrary to how you've experienced things. This is the same thing that happens in rural areas of the United States when considering urban areas of the United States.

Less of that now moderator, you're about as subtle as a sledge hammer. You may have strayed a couple of blocks off the high-street but I bet you've never been to the ghettos in New Orleans or in Philadelphia, the proving grounds of Hillary's super-predators.

Overall crime may be falling but gang violence is more prevalent than ever and it specifically effects Americas lower classes and minorities.

American cities are not nearly as violent as they're portrayed. It's about the same level of accuracy of Ireland as portrayed in that show Heroes, where a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth North Americans pretending to have Ulster accents walked around a sound stage saying stuff that sounded vaguely Catholic to Protestant and Jewish ears.

Actually in the past 12 months there has been bout a dozen gang related murders in Ireland, a population of around four and a half million. It's dominated the news all year with words like "epidemic" and unacceptable" frequently used. If four hundred people were killed in gang related murders in London in one year the city would probably fall under martial law.

@jessupjonesjnr87 seems to believe Chicago, or rather some parts of it are like Detroit in the RoboCop franchise.

No, some parts of Detroit are like Detroit in the Robocop franchise though.

[The Immortal Goon]

400 hundred gun deaths a year is high even for a population of 10million and as I've said it's not spread out over the ten million, it's disproportionately high in certain lower class areas.

If that's your feeling, you're entitled to it. But having a less than half-a percent chance of something happening to you is pretty good odds. Yes, it's higher in some areas and people are addressing that, but it's hardly a catastrophe.

You may have strayed a couple of blocks off the high-street but I bet you've never been to the ghettos in New Orleans or in Philadelphia, the proving grounds of Hillary's super-predators.

Not those two cities, but ghettos in LA and Memphis. I'm not going to lie and say I wasn't alert, but it never felt like there was any imminent danger of any kind.

Overall crime may be falling but gang violence is more prevalent than ever and it specifically effects Americas lower classes and minorities.

Sure. But it's not the 1930s Chicago gang warfare people tend to imagine. It's really not so bad.

Actually in the past 12 months there has been bout a dozen gang related murders in Ireland, a population of around four and a half million. It's dominated the news all year with words like "epidemic" and unacceptable" frequently used. If four hundred people were killed in gang related murders in London in one year the city would probably fall under martial law.

The news will always pump things up. This is, again, not to say it's not something to be addressed.

London has, on average, just short of 200 murders per year. That's pretty good for a city that big, though it's also a city without guns, and we have no idea if those stats are comparable with your stats for Detroit as the goalposts are constantly changing for what you're talking about.
The uncited 400 number you gave was first deaths. Then violent deaths. Now it's deaths related to gang violence. What, exactly, are we comparing here?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Homicide

[noemon]

Corporate taxes: Romania has a 15% corporate tax rate; why? Because they are trying to attract industry and encourage growth. And Trump's tax situation is typical of our corporations; when the corporate tax rate is 35% it pays to invest in a whole bevy of attorneys.

According to the World Bank statistics Romania receives 18% of its GDP through tax revenues. The US receives only 9.8% of its GDP in tax revenue.

Suppose your reduce corporate tax and you bring the stat down to 7.5%, you create a hole in your finances, more debt, less jobs, less infrastructure. Trump trumps about a single tax but refuses to look at the big picture which is rather obvious, there is very little room for the US to reduce taxes even more, when the average western nation receives between 20-30% of its GDP in tax income to be able to sustain the modicum of an advanced western infrastructure and welfare. The level of tax income in the US is similar to that of offshore tax-havens.

If anybody were serious about tax reform, then the discussion would be how to improve tax receipts to bring them up to a sustainable level, so that the debt can be reduced and more public investment can take place.

On the subject of de-industrialisation, the entire western world has been subject to that problem which is an issue brought about by globalisation and the very system that the US has been forcing down the throats of the rest of the world for decades, your economy is saturated and the level of capitalistic development has reached its zenith giving way to economic fatigue, no amount of further tax breaks or protectionism is going to bring back these industries in the US because the rest of the world is 25 times larger than the US market asking for salaries 20 times smaller than the US worker.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

@BoneAmi that post had nothing to do with mine. You can go on and on about taxes all you want, but when you yourself say that Hillary won't get a tax increase past congress, it seems kind of dumb to want to vote for Trump. My point is that Trump and the GOP's strategy of blaming Clinton for every mistake of American government for the past thirty years is not going to work. A lot of us grew up with the Bush presidency and the Republicans' inability to govern. No one with a brain is going to fall for the blame Hillary for everything kick that Trumpers are on because it just doesn't make sense. She's not a member of the Illuminati, she has spent the last 30 years in public service trying to help people. The Republicans didn't exactly make it easier...

[The Immortal Goon]

Homicide

Yup. Lots of homicide in Chicago.

Though it's generally decreasing



And, as mentioned, in a city of 10,000,000, it's not as dire as it may appear (London, while statistically still doing better than Chicago, is a few million people short of Chicago).

I don't know that there's much more to say aside from the fact that it's really not so bad as people may have heard.

[BoneAmi]

According to the World Bank statistics Romania receives 18% of its GDP through tax revenues. The US receives only 9.8% of its GDP in tax revenue.

Suppose your reduce corporate tax and you bring the stat down to 7.5%, you create a hole in your finances, more debt, less jobs, less infrastructure. Trump trumps about a single tax but refuses to look at the big picture which is rather obvious, there is very little room for the US to reduce taxes even more, when the average western nation receives between 20-30% of its GDP in tax income to be able to sustain the modicum of an advanced western infrastructure and welfare. The level of tax income in the US is similar to that of offshore tax-havens.

If anybody were serious about tax reform, then the discussion would be how to improve tax receipts to bring them up to a sustainable level, so that the debt can be reduced and more public investment can take place.

On the subject of de-industrialisation, the entire western world has been subject to that problem which is an issue brought about by globalisation and the very system that the US has been forcing down the throats of the rest of the world for decades, your economy is saturated and the level of capitalistic development has reached its zenith giving way to economic fatigue, no amount of further tax breaks or protectionism is going to bring back these industries in the US because the rest of the world is 25 times larger than the US market asking for salaries 20 times smaller than the US worker.

Yea. I don't really agree with your assessment. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how to interpret this page at the World Bank. It appears to be suggesting the US derives 10% of its GDP from taxes. These are what? Sales taxes on goods? Because certainly tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is but a ratio of taxes collected to products and services sold. Revenue imparts a negative to depress GDP.

As I understand it the top marginal corporate rate in the US is about 40%. What this does, if nothing else, is encourage tax mobilization to low-tax countries. And with it, production.

I can understand the view that this is a post-industrial economy. But that doesn't mean that this is post-industrial world. But look even at the globalists, they exist for the purpose of tax avoidance.

I lived in Germany during the 1980s. At that time Germany, aside from a few specific models produced by Toyota, had zero imports. Virtually every product that the Germans used was produced in Germany, everything from cosmetics to cars. But look at them today. They have admitted cheap imports, and their corporations in an effort to remain viable have expanded their markets to become multinationals. But their employees are making less because on the regional level the products they produce must now compete with the cheaper import. So imports have devalued labor. Today the average millennial spends anywhere from one to ten years in search of gainful employment. Couple this with high personal income tax, about 50%, and many of them are leaving the country for these low-tax countries, like Czechoslovakia, or Austria. Their parents pay to educate them and they leave. And with it the loss of assets, a generational affair. And so what have we achieved with globalization? Well, we've sacrificed the children to the world's industrial machine, enslaved them to the corporate multinationals turned globalists.

We don't need increased taxes; we need to grow our tax base. And we do that through returning jobs and the corporations that create them, to America. You would say the cat's out of the bag, that we can't go back. But that is absolutely false. We have an ever increasing population that requires goods. We need to scale back cheap imports and make American production viable again.

Hillary promises nothing. Alternative energy, green jobs, a promising field. But it won't happen here because manufacturing is no longer viable. Even the service end of this is being out-sourced to foreign corporations.

And the elitist does not care; they care only about the bribes, the wealth, they can extract for favorable corporate legislation. It's just beautifully eloquent, scripted, hollow rhetoric. And anyone with an ounce of business acumen realizes it.

[noemon]

Yea. I don't really agree with your assessment. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how to interpret this page at the World Bank. It appears to be suggesting the US derives 10% of its GDP from taxes. These are what? Sales taxes on goods? Because certainly tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is but a ratio of taxes collected to products and services sold. Revenue imparts a negative to depress GDP.

As I understand it the top marginal corporate rate in the US is about 40%. What this does, if nothing else, is encourage tax mobilization to low-tax countries. And with it, production.

This is the totality of tax receipts except for social security contributions, so personal income taxes, state taxes, federal taxes and so on. The 9.8% shows that the US receives very little tax receipts despite the presumed high corporate taxes and that is because it has very low sales taxes in many cases non-existent as opposed to 20% VAT in the rest of the western world and also low personal income taxes and low municipal taxes, again in many cases non-existent compared to the rest of the western world, essentially a company in the US pays a lot less tax than a company in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and so on and forth even if corporate tax is lower in some of these countries, not to mention that corporate tax is paid on declared profits and not on reinvested wealth or dividends allowing companies to legally evade it. The assumption therefore that a further reduction of tax when it is already the lowest in the western world will result in net benefits is mistaken.

We don't need increased taxes; we need to grow our tax base. And we do that through returning jobs and the corporations that create them, to America. You would say the cat's out of the bag, that we can't go back. But that is absolutely false. We have an ever increasing population that requires goods. We need to scale back cheap imports and make American production viable again.

Your tax receipts are the lowest in the western world, racing to the bottom in order to increase a tax base that does not essentially pay any tax has not only zero benefits but negative effects because it creates huge holes in your balance sheets that then needs to be filled with debt. This strategy you have in mind will work in a country like Denmark or Sweden which enjoy very high tax receipts and have the room to reduce to increase performance and this is a strategy that has been done in the US several times in the past with Reagan being the most famous example, but the more you do it the less you can do it in the future because you eat up the space that you have available to play, now at less than 10% of GDP, there is no more room for that any longer, you need to bring your tax receipts up to 20% and then give companies and the public a boost by putting it down to 15%, from 9.8% if you go to 5%, the state coffers are finished and you are bankrupt within a year.

Lastly there is the issue of monopolies/oligopolies in the extremely saturated US market, reducing corporate taxes will not enable any new companies to enter & compete with the existing elephants and the existing elephants have no reason to re-invest the supposed tax-subsidy because they are already leading the market. These tricks work when the time is right and when there is sufficient competition and these tricks could very well work in Denmark and Sweden to provide boosts in their economies very successfully, but the US has already used up its lives in the video-game.

[ArtAllm]

The Debates: My immediate impression was one of political theater; it actually looked as if Hillary and Holt had rehearsed together, colluding, to create a platform for her long-winded and obviously scripted responses.

I had the same impression, Hillary knew the questions that would be asked, she got the script, and she was rehearsing a lot the role she had to play.

All her answers were rehearsed by heart, and she was just acting, like a good actor.

But an actor cannot act without a script, and Trump can improvise, he can react ad hock, and that is the quality which distinguishes a great statesman from a puppet or an actor.

 

I don't get it. The machine assumes that we are without memory, incapable of recalling the political past, or that they can simply repaint it at will. It's just bizarre.

They believe that when a lie is repeated often enough in their media, it becomes the truth.
This tactics perfectly worked in the past, why not try them again?

[Zagadka]

"Trump won by a landslide" ---> "It wasn't fair, the debate was obviously rigged" in record time.

[Saeko]

I had the same impression, Hillary knew the questions that would be asked, she got the script, and she was rehearsing a lot the role she had to play.

All her answers were rehearsed by heart, and she was just acting, like a good actor.

But an actor cannot act without a script, and Trump can improvise, he can react ad hock, and that is the quality which distinguishes a great statesman from a puppet or an actor.

 



They believe that when a lie is repeated often enough in their media, it becomes the truth.
This tactics perfectly worked in the past, why not try them again?

The ability to spew bullshit on demand is no indicator of a great statesman.

[ArtAllm]

The ability to spew bullshit on demand is no indicator of a great statesman.

What "demand"?

If Trump would have engaged in the sexual lives of the Clintons, then we could say that he was talking BS.

But he said that he could not do it, because he is a decent person. And the Clinton-Family is a family of corrupt lying murderers and perverse sexual maniacs and rapists.

[SpecialOlympian]

Saying, "I could be a huge dick to you right now, but I won't" isn't something a decent person does and it's not praiseworthy.

The fact that Hillary and her campaign spent time preparing for the debate and anticipating what kind of questions might be asked by Trump or Lester Holt (which isn't all that difficult, it's not like debates cover completely new ground) doesn't make her an actor or a puppet. It makes her prepared. And she certainly fared better than Trump, who came out with no preparation whatsoever and looked like a fucking fool for it.

"Call Sean Hannity! Nobody has called Sean Hannity! Also, I hate Rosie O'Donnell!"

What a joke of a man. Hell, he already looks like he's wearing clown makeup.

[Saeko]

What "demand"?

If Trump would have engaged in the sexual lives of the Clintons, then we could say that he was talking BS.

But he said that he could not do it, because he is a decent person. And the Clinton-Family is a family of corrupt lying murderers and perverse sexual maniacs and rapists.

I was thinking more along the lines of how he's way in over his head and how he gloats about not paying his taxes, etc.

[SpecialOlympian]

"Hmm, no idea what the hell could be on this upcoming science test. Could it be anything in the chapters we've covered since the last test or anything the teacher has discussed in class? No way to know, guess I'll just wing it."

-Donald Trump, not an actor or puppet

[BoneAmi]

This is the totality of tax receipts except for social security contributions, so personal income taxes, state taxes, federal taxes and so on. The 9.8% shows that the US receives very little tax receipts despite the presumed high corporate taxes and that is because it has very low sales taxes in many cases non-existent as opposed to 20% VAT in the rest of the western world and also low personal income taxes and low municipal taxes, again in many cases non-existent compared to the rest of the western world.

I don't agree with your assessment at all. More, I see it as the ad hoc means by which some seek to justify.

Obviously these things vary regionally, and from state to state, but in my little corner of the world I would guess the average household has typical combined income of 150k or so. There are those who make less and certainly there are those who make far more. But I would say that 150 is probably the average. Of that 150, they're paying 10 - 15% in property taxes, 15 - 20% on average in federal taxes, 5 - 10% in state taxes, an additional 10% in sales, excise taxes and fees. The average household is paying forty of forty-five percent of their income in taxes.

You know, so I think there is huge disparity between what the city dwellers of the Left would prefer to believe and what is actually occurring. A shame so many commit to life in a bubble of bullshit.