OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[TeK]

Criminal? In this day and age, everyone prefers to use one mobile device and she admitted she's addicted to her blackberry. What if it really was a case of her relying on her IT staff and friends (including Colin Powell) that a private server was safe enough if you were carefully to delete all classified emails with the classified markings on the headers of the emails? What if it was really just a mistake and not intentionally breaking a law? Same with Bengazi, she was never convicted of intentional wrong doing.

It sounds like you're anti-Democrat and anti-Obama. All politics aside, Trump is no laughing matter when you look at his character and inexperience.

Im a dem and I'm not voting for Hillary.

She cheats and lies about literally everything.

Remember the whole no earpiece rule?

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

Thanks for posting the debunking. I was not aware of that.

[TeK]

I can't stop watching this...

[waffle]

America lost. That's the only issue.

Absolutely.

Someone mentioned that Hilary is the "lesser of two evils" but as the quote goes, "the lesser of two evils, is still evil."

I personally do not want that criminal anywhere near the white house as she should be sitting in a federal prison. I want trump to win for no rational reason. I want him to win for the chuckles. After 8 years of barack america deserves four years of trump.

With that said neither trump or clinton is getting more than one term so....

wow

[gardenofsound]

What? Hillary has way too much to gain from this. Please do some research as to who is funding Hillary. Do you think those people are handing her campaign millions from the goodness of their hearts?

Source?

According to this: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Soros has funded $10.54mm out of $517mm. That's more like 2%, not 10%.

Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of her campaign, and Soros added another 10%. Why? Why is SA funding a US presidential candidate? Does that not concern you?

I find no indication of the Saudi government contributing money to the Clinton campaign, nor has there been any established link between donations and her actions in political office (see the cited link above). Until I am provided with a non-partisan source to show otherwise, I will continue to believe that the Clinton Foundation has stayed detached from HRC's politics.

Combine that with just yesterday, Obama going out of his way to veto a bill allowing US citizens to sue SA for terror attacks (which was rejected today), that raises a ton of eye brows.

Congress overrode the veto today, but many of them (on both sides of the aisle, I might add), expressed a very similar caution that Obama expressed to this. Frankly, I am torn on the issue because I see merit to both sides of the argument. I do think this could open a floodgate of litigation against the USA--much of which would be with cause and merit. I have a feeling there would be some rich Saudi's who would be happy to fund a lawsuit against the USA on behalf of Iraqi citizens whose families have been torn apart by the war the USA started based on a farce.

I honestly have no issue with Trump legally not paying taxes. The system is set up to be gamed. I equally try and get my taxes as low as possible. So does anyone who holds assets and is in a higher tax bracket. This is why I pay $250 to have my taxes done instead of doing it myself in TurboTax. It's not cheating if you are working within the rules of the system.

I also try to legally pay as little as I can with taxes, but I actually do pay taxes.

Part of my hope from our next president is the system can no longer be gamed by multimillionaires, let alone alleged multi-billionaires. The point I'd make is that it should not be legally possible for someone of Trump's alleged wealth to be able to shirk taxes completely. What he has proposed as his tax plan would be... well...

Individuals earning more than $500,000 per year would see a tax cut of 14.6%, the largest cut in any income tax bracket under the plan.

In other words, the greatest benefit would be for the wealthiest in our society (including Donald Trump and his family). My taxes would go down, but our national debt would skyrocket.

On the other hand, for Clinton:

The bottom 95% of taxpayers will not see any change in their tax rates under Secretary Clinton’s proposal. Clinton’s tax plan will raise the tax rate on those making $5 million a year by 4% (from 39.6% to 43.6%.) Clinton’s plan would also enact the “Buffet Rule” which eliminates deductions and establishes a 30% minimum income tax on individuals and families who earn more than $1 million per year.

She stands to not benefit at all from the tax plan she proposes (she would actually pay more). While my taxes would not change (and I assume that to be the case for almost all of this board), we would start eating into our national debt.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Trump violates Cuban trade embargo bombshell manana?

[johnnyvann840]

Trump violates Cuban trade embargo bombshell manana?

Big deal.... you can bet your ass the "Lewinsky cigars" were certainly Cubanos. So we know Bill did too.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Trump violates Cuban trade embargo bombshell manana?

Big deal.... you can bet your ass the "Lewinsky cigars" were certainly Cubanos. So we know Bill did too.

Cool story Bro.

[johnnyvann840]

Trump violates Cuban trade embargo bombshell manana?

Big deal.... you can bet your ass the "Lewinsky cigars" were certainly Cubanos. So we know Bill did too.

Cool story Bro.

Really? not even a chuckle?


I thought it was funny.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Big deal.... you can bet your ass the "Lewinsky cigars" were certainly Cubanos. So we know Bill did too.

Cool story Bro.

Really? not even a chuckle?


I thought it was funny.

...........crickets.

[TheStig]

What? Hillary has way too much to gain from this. Please do some research as to who is funding Hillary. Do you think those people are handing her campaign millions from the goodness of their hearts?

Source?

According to this: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Soros has funded $10.54mm out of $517mm. That's more like 2%, not 10%.

Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of her campaign, and Soros added another 10%. Why? Why is SA funding a US presidential candidate? Does that not concern you?

I find no indication of the Saudi government contributing money to the Clinton campaign, nor has there been any established link between donations and her actions in political office (see the cited link above). Until I am provided with a non-partisan source to show otherwise, I will continue to believe that the Clinton Foundation has stayed detached from HRC's politics.

Combine that with just yesterday, Obama going out of his way to veto a bill allowing US citizens to sue SA for terror attacks (which was rejected today), that raises a ton of eye brows.

Congress overrode the veto today, but many of them (on both sides of the aisle, I might add), expressed a very similar caution that Obama expressed to this. Frankly, I am torn on the issue because I see merit to both sides of the argument. I do think this could open a floodgate of litigation against the USA--much of which would be with cause and merit. I have a feeling there would be some rich Saudi's who would be happy to fund a lawsuit against the USA on behalf of Iraqi citizens whose families have been torn apart by the war the USA started based on a farce.

I honestly have no issue with Trump legally not paying taxes. The system is set up to be gamed. I equally try and get my taxes as low as possible. So does anyone who holds assets and is in a higher tax bracket. This is why I pay $250 to have my taxes done instead of doing it myself in TurboTax. It's not cheating if you are working within the rules of the system.

I also try to legally pay as little as I can with taxes, but I actually do pay taxes.

Part of my hope from our next president is the system can no longer be gamed by multimillionaires, let alone alleged multi-billionaires. The point I'd make is that it should not be legally possible for someone of Trump's alleged wealth to be able to shirk taxes completely. What he has proposed as his tax plan would be... well...

Individuals earning more than $500,000 per year would see a tax cut of 14.6%, the largest cut in any income tax bracket under the plan.

In other words, the greatest benefit would be for the wealthiest in our society (including Donald Trump and his family). My taxes would go down, but our national debt would skyrocket.

On the other hand, for Clinton:

The bottom 95% of taxpayers will not see any change in their tax rates under Secretary Clinton’s proposal. Clinton’s tax plan will raise the tax rate on those making $5 million a year by 4% (from 39.6% to 43.6%.) Clinton’s plan would also enact the “Buffet Rule” which eliminates deductions and establishes a 30% minimum income tax on individuals and families who earn more than $1 million per year.

She stands to not benefit at all from the tax plan she proposes (she would actually pay more). While my taxes would not change (and I assume that to be the case for almost all of this board), we would start eating into our national debt.

Donald's already shown his true colors. He doesn't care about the working man. This "tariff" on companies that leave will never pass mustard. Like the wall, it's a smoke screen.

But his tax plan is very near and dear to him. Why? Well the tax cut would help him and his peers the most. And the loophole on foreign money will let him bring his money back to the US tax free. A Trump presidency stands to profit a guy like Trump! And who's going to pay? The American people who have an additional 5 trillion in debt from it. That's not including all the stupid wars his mouth will get us in, trade or military.

You know why he likes law and order so much? Because it cleaned up the streets outside of Trump Tower and the plaza. Who cares if it sent millions of low level offenders to prison? Who cares if murders are even lower in NYC when it's gone......

[RedBulls23]

I would like to know why Donald Trump thought it was a good idea to mention that he gets audited every year? Bruh...that's like saying you frequently have to get std testing. Neither is something you should actually admit out loud.

[League Circles]

. While my taxes would not change (and I assume that to be the case for almost all of this board), we would start eating into our national debt.

Are you sure about that?

I haven't heard anything about Hilary planning for a budget surplus, which is required to actually eat into the debt, as opposed to eat into the budget deficit, which is a scary low bar for fiscal responsibility.

[holv03]

I'm an independent and I don't really like democrat or republican even though I tend to agree more with republicans because I am conservative but I think that Trump should win.

I really can't agree with Hillary on anything. She has been in government for years and has not done anything positive. I think she should be in prison specially after all the email controversy and the whole Benghazi situation. I have plenty of friends and family members who are serving this country and to see her get away with all that is insane. Now I don't agree with Trump on everything but I do agree with him on the taxes we should have a tax cut all across the board. Why? People deserve to have more income, businesses shouldn't get taxed so highly and when you put that together you will get people to buy more and businesses will be able to expand and create more jobs. Also I agree with Trump on stopping Syrian refugees to come over for a while. Why? We don't have enough information on any of them and we need to be sure they haven't been influence by Isis. Education? Should be local and state not federal. The department of education is not necessary it hasn't really helped with anything. Another thing stop giving food stamps and benefits to the people who are here illegally because if a US Citizen can't get it then why should a person who is here illegally. The law is the law point blank. Now I disagree with his attitude, I also disagree with other points but I believe that he would be a better fit that Hillary. She is too corrupt and in all reality you become a multi millionaire from government? That to me sounds like corruption. Anyone who becomes a millionaire just by being in politics raises the question of corruption. I don't like either candidate I really wanted Rand Paul but I will be voting for Trump this year and just to say don't listen to the media I'm Hispanic and many of my friends are too they are all voting Trump. These polls out there are a bunch of crap we also need a moderator that has questions about real issues and laws not miss universe or the birth of Obama. This debate was pathetic specially some of the questions.

[gardenofsound]

. While my taxes would not change (and I assume that to be the case for almost all of this board), we would start eating into our national debt.

Are you sure about that?

I haven't heard anything about Hilary planning for a budget surplus, which is required to actually eat into the debt, as opposed to eat into the budget deficit, which is a scary low bar for fiscal responsibility.

I cited a non-partisan source. That's where I derived that statement.

[TheStig]

I would like to know why Donald Trump thought it was a good idea to mention that he gets audited every year? Bruh...that's like saying you frequently have to get std testing. Neither is something you should actually admit out loud.

He's a blowhard. The IRS only audits the last 7 years (which he hasn't ever released the IRS audit letter to prove) but that doesn't stop him from releasing 1980-2008.....

[League Circles]

Spoiler:

. While my taxes would not change (and I assume that to be the case for almost all of this board), we would start eating into our national debt.

Are you sure about that?

I haven't heard anything about Hilary planning for a budget surplus, which is required to actually eat into the debt, as opposed to eat into the budget deficit, which is a scary low bar for fiscal responsibility.

I cited a non-partisan source. That's where I derived that statement.

Ok I see now thanks. It says it would reduce the debt by like 498 billion over 10 years.

Two things:

1. Typically, for various (crappy) reasons, items like this are reported as impact on debt plus or minus what the debt is projected to overwise be at that point in time as opposed to what it is currently (which would be much more relevant and much scarier). This is because, as a result of legislation and spending plans that are already in effect (but could and should be reversed), we are projected to keep increasing our debt going forward. So, most likely, what the source is actually reporting, whether they know it or not, is that under current projections, the debt is supposed to rise lets say 7 trllion over 10 years, and under hilary, only 6.5 trillion.

2. Even if I'm wrong on #1 (I'm 95% sure I'm right), that would only be like a 2 or 3 % decrease in debt over the next 10 years, which in my opinion is pretty darned insignificant.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I'm always amazed at how little policy is actually discussed during these debates. Very little real information is given about the candidates policies and stances on subjects. It's 90% word diarrhea. Reminds me of this:

Watch on YouTube

That being said, I'd question the intelligence of anyone saying Trump won the debate. That was a disaster.

[holv03]

I'm always amazed at how little policy is actually discussed during these debates. Very little real information is given about the candidates policies and stances on subjects. It's 90% word diarrhea. Reminds me of this:

Watch on YouTube

That being said, I'd question the intelligence of anyone saying Trump won the debate. That was a disaster.

We need to talk more about real issues and policies. It said that I saw the debate for governor of Puerto Rico and they actually talked about issues which was shocking unlike the USA that it was basically a rap battle. Basically who ever had the best bars won it was pathetic. Trump did good in the first 20 minutes then he went downhill. He should of stayed talking about issues and policies instead of following Clinton's disses.

[burlydee]

Trump is pretty much a buffoon. His answers literally didn't make sense 50% of the time. He speaks in soundbytes and when pressed, can't back up his answers. His lack of preparation for the debate should have disqualified him from the moment. This is like a doctor who doesn't study for his boards - um, you're too irresponsible for the position than. He's a proven crook, liar, racist, sexist and fraud. But other than that, he seems like a nice guy. This guy makes George W Bush look smart. The people who vote for him now, will be claiming they never supported him in 4 years, if he were to become President, just like with W. He would tank the economy, the environment, and our foreign policy hard.

[burlydee]

I would like to know why Donald Trump thought it was a good idea to mention that he gets audited every year? Bruh...that's like saying you frequently have to get std testing. Neither is something you should actually admit out loud.

He's a blowhard. The IRS only audits the last 7 years (which he hasn't ever released the IRS audit letter to prove) but that doesn't stop him from releasing 1980-2008.....

Being audited doesn't prevent you from releasing your taxes. He could release everything right now. He doesn't want to b/c he is a tax cheat and he doesn't want to show he hasn't paid any taxes, despite his income.