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

[greenl]

Under Obama, confidence has been restored in America as an actor in global affairs. That's what that graph shows.

No- it shows that 10 European countries have more faith in Obama than Trump/Bush to make better decisions. Interesting that each line on that graph is trending downward. And you are right- it is only 24% who feel that the US is the biggest threat to world peace- but that's over 60 different countries and we came in first by a wide margin.

1) a correction is not the same as a downtrend
2) the united states is easily the biggest player on the world stage. as long as that remains the case it will always be a polarizing force. there is a certain percentage of foreigners that will always hate the US. the more genuine threats to world peace (and there are many) are splitting the vote

1) Correction implies it will be heading back upwards at some point- since he is leaving office- it won't be- thus downtrend is the proper term.
2) How many different countries have we bombed in the last 15 years? And what's the success rate of drone strikes? Pretty certain we are one of the bigger threats to world peace. Our hyper vigilant world police officer role is unsustainable and engendering understandable anger in all corners of the globe. One can argue that we are not a genuine threat (though that's a tough case to make) but one can not dispute the facts of the poll results.

[TheSuzerain]

Under Obama, confidence has been restored in America as an actor in global affairs. That's what that graph shows.

Interesting that each line on that graph is trending downward.

Let's look at the data up to 2016:



Interesting that most of the lines on the graph are now trending upward!

[greenl]

Under Obama, confidence has been restored in America as an actor in global affairs. That's what that graph shows.

Interesting that each line on that graph is trending downward.

Let's look at the data up to 2016:



Interesting that most of the lines on the graph are now trending upward!

3 of 5. The others are flat or down. Is this the hill you wish to fight on? A few European countries (none of whom have been bombed by the US- most of whose inhabitants are not brown) have a higher opinion of Obama than his abysmal predecessor? Woo hoo- break out the kegs. Let's go ahead and white wash the rest of the horrible things his Administration has done.

[TheSuzerain]

Interesting that each line on that graph is trending downward.

Let's look at the data up to 2016:



Interesting that most of the lines on the graph are now trending upward!

3 of 5. The others are flat or down. Is this the hill you wish to fight on? A few European countries (none of whom have been bombed by the US- most of whose inhabitants are not brown) have a higher opinion of Obama than his abysmal predecessor? Woo hoo- break out the kegs. Let's go ahead and white wash the rest of the horrible things his Administration has done.

To be coldly honest, the opinion's of Western Europe are far, far more important to the United States than the opinions of anyone in the Middle East. This isn't about morality or being the good guy. It's about our position as the hegemon of the Western world.

[greenl]

To be coldly honest, the opinion's of Western Europe are far, far more important to the United States than the opinions of anyone in the Middle East. This isn't about morality or being the good guy. It's about our position as the hegemon of the Western world.

I don't follow- but I'll give you the last word. Our hegemony is derived from our economic and military might. That some Europeans feel better about who is dictating the expression of that power seems like window dressing to me and insignificant in the larger picture that our government (including the executive branch) is run by corporations.

[dice]

No- it shows that 10 European countries have more faith in Obama than Trump/Bush to make better decisions. Interesting that each line on that graph is trending downward. And you are right- it is only 24% who feel that the US is the biggest threat to world peace- but that's over 60 different countries and we came in first by a wide margin.

1) a correction is not the same as a downtrend
2) the united states is easily the biggest player on the world stage. as long as that remains the case it will always be a polarizing force. there is a certain percentage of foreigners that will always hate the US. the more genuine threats to world peace (and there are many) are splitting the vote

1) Correction implies it will be heading back upwards at some point- since he is leaving office- it won't be- thus downtrend is the proper term.

no it doesn't. THAT would imply that trends are the natural state of things. whereas the most likely scenario assuming no major changes in leadership (trump) is that the percentages will become range-bound

2) How many different countries have we bombed in the last 15 years? And what's the success rate of drone strikes? Pretty certain we are one of the bigger threats to world peace. Our hyper vigilant world police officer role is unsustainable and engendering understandable anger in all corners of the globe. One can argue that we are not a genuine threat (though that's a tough case to make) but one can not dispute the facts of the poll results.

i'm not disputing the facts of the poll results. i'm saying that the poll results are misleading. and it's pretty damn obvious that state sponsors of terrorism and rogue states with nukes are the biggest threats to world peace. of course, you can say that the US is a big threat to world peace simply BECAUSE we are so powerful. there's really no argument against that. it's just a meaningless statement. any sole superpower would almost inherently be in the upper echelon of potential national threats to world peace

[greenl]

and it's pretty damn obvious that state sponsors of terrorism and rogue states with nukes are the biggest threats to wold peace

Pretty sure that describes the US. How many proxy wars have we sponsored? Who invented nukes? How many dictators have we codified and propped up? How many women and children have we killed in the name of American exceptionalism? We have as much if not more innocent blood on our collective hands than anyone. Yet we dismiss the fact that much of the world views us as a threat to peace hiding behind the excuse that its because we are so powerful? It's not the power, it's the ham handed way we express that power that concerns the rest of the world.

[chifan1798]

Realistically speaking, I assume the majority of us are in IL. IL is so heavily dem favored that the vote for or against Hil won't really matter either way.

All I'm saying is I don't trust her motives behind closed doors, she will be an extension of the Obama campaign, we will still have a ton of debt piling up, and in 10yrs we will be a 3rd world country. The TPP will pass. This will be advantageous for big business, but may put the smaller guys out of business as they won't be able to turn a profit. To the average consumer this will be fine for the first few yrs. To the small business that has to close and fire 200ppl this will be a disastrous life changing event.

I hope that is just and exaggeration by you to make a point, because if you actually believe that, then you've never had an experience the non-tourist area of any of the 3rd world countries.

[dice]

and it's pretty damn obvious that state sponsors of terrorism and rogue states with nukes are the biggest threats to wold peace

Pretty sure that describes the US.

then you're way off

How many proxy wars have we sponsored? Who invented nukes? How many dictators have we codified and propped up? How many women and children have we killed in the name of American exceptionalism? We have as much if not more innocent blood on our collective hands than anyone. Yet we dismiss the fact that much of the world views us as a threat to peace hiding behind the excuse that its because we are so powerful? It's not the power, it's the ham handed way we express that power that concerns the rest of the world.

very true, but it has little to do with what i said

[Flopper]

He has restored our image across the world.

Not so much- unless that image is of a blood thirsty war mongering nation that indiscriminately terrorizes Muslim countries with drone warfare.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-threat-peace-world-guess-who-its-us

I think we can all agree that the most surprising (or disappointing depending on your viewpoint) aspect of the Obama presidency has been his hawkishness on many national security issues. In addition to the drone proliferation, I would add the continued erosion of privacy and increase in monitoring/data collection by government agencies against US citizens as one of his major failures.

[rasta_marley]

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.

In theory we would but would we really? I have a feeling our government would find a way to spend it. Such as oh hey Congress needs a raise. Myself i believe in a flat tax for everyone. Something like 14% if you believe we need it higher well that's what they want you to believe.

Sent from my LG-K373 using RealGM mobile app

[r1terrell23]

I would like to see his taxes but I also want to see the 33,000 emails that Clinton deleted that some may contain classified information and put our national security in danger. I think the media needs to push on both issues and not one.

Trump's tax "cheat" isn't technically illegal. If you find loopholes....you use them.

I know that. He's using the laws of the nation to his advantage and I really don't blame him. We would all do the same but what I am trying to say is that they are pushing the whole Tax thing hardcore but they don't even bother to push on the mess with the e-mails. Clinton and the media are one evil team that are just trying to destroy this country. I rather vote for Trump than for Clinton anyday. She's too corrupt in my mind.

You are a great poster but this post is BS. Clinton has been smacked around about these emails and Gazi non stop. And a President should not be finding loopholes to cheat the system regarding taxes. Business practices are whatever but taxes should be paid by all.

[greenl]

then you're way off

Must be nice to live in an alternate reality.

very true, but it has little to do with what i said "any sole superpower would almost inherently be in the upper echelon of potential national threats to world peace"

What you wrote was that the poll results were misleading; you implied the rest of the world will naturally fear a powerful military. My rebuttal- no- they fear our awful track record of using said power not the power itself.

[SHO'NUFF]

Trump's tax "cheat" isn't technically illegal. If you find loopholes....you use them.

I know that. He's using the laws of the nation to his advantage and I really don't blame him. We would all do the same but what I am trying to say is that they are pushing the whole Tax thing hardcore but they don't even bother to push on the mess with the e-mails. Clinton and the media are one evil team that are just trying to destroy this country. I rather vote for Trump than for Clinton anyday. She's too corrupt in my mind.

You are a great poster but this post is BS. Clinton has been smacked around about these emails and Gazi non stop. And a President should not be finding loopholes to cheat the system regarding taxes. Business practices are whatever but taxes should be paid by all.

He's not president "yet". He's a businessman working the system just like many other millionaire businessmen. The Clinton emails are MUCH worse than Trump finding legal loopholes in the tax system....if that is in fact what he did.

[Jo Jo English]

Earlier today I ended up talking "politics" with a close family member for an hour or so. We absolutely support different candidates and the conversation was at times less than constructive considering how far apart we were on almost every issue. Near the end of our discussion I found out that they believe that any Clinton victory on election night... and I mean JUST that, literally ANY Clinton victory is fraudulent and that the only way Trump can lose is through voter fraud on behalf of the DNC.

This is an adult. This is a person that has had the chance to participate in elections dating all the way back to the late 1960s. They truly believe that the only way Trump can lose is if the Dems cheat.

I know it's a ridiculous thing to think and I know that you can find voters on each side with extremist views. I know this.

That doesn't make it any easier to see up close and personal. It is so sad.

[ThreeMileAllan]

Man when people say Hilary hasn't accomplished anything, it chaps my hide.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

The way Trump is about women it baffles me that he has any support.

Everybody has women in their life how can anyone support such a piece of ****?

[samwana]

The way Trump is about women it baffles me that he has any support.

Everybody has women in their life how can anyone support such a piece of ****?

Thank you sir!!

[ImSlower]

Not just his blatant misogyny, but the guy is a blatant racist! How can anyone that is, or knows any one who is a minority vote for Trump? It just shocks me on a daily basis that a guy who is openly, over and over, making racist comments - disparaging anyone in sight - and people just say "Yeah well Hillary lies."

I've never been more fearful for the state of the world than the thought of Trump sitting at that desk. If the choices are a shady liar, a white supremacist, and an utter buffoon, I am voting for the political spinster every time. Trump in the Oval Office would be the most hated leader in the world by everyone except Russia. Come on.

[dice]

then you're way off

Must be nice to live in an alternate reality.

no, you just don't understand what a state sponsor of terrorism is. nor, apparently, what terrorism itself is. it requires intent to terrorize, namely civilian populations. and if you think ANY united states military operation is done with the intent to terrorize ANY civilian population, you're cynical beyond repair

a rogue state is one that has no regard for international conventions as a matter of course. it generally requires sustained leadership (e.g. dictatorships and military states). there is no question that the US has done things that the international community frowns upon, particularly in the bush years, but any suggestion that it's standard operating procedure, particularly across administrations, is specious at best