TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 72 of 170
Quote:They're voting with their emotions, facts be damned.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That implies that people's emotions aren't legitimate.
Nope, just their judgement.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Emotions matter in the real world because they drive behavior. Facts, not so much.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
They're voting with their emotions, facts be damned.
That implies that people's emotions aren't legitimate.
I have posted over ... and over ... and over ... and over ...
Trump doesn’t ignore facts because he is dumb. He does it because facts don’t matter. Every trained persuader knows that.
In the 2D world, where people think that facts and reason matter, Trump’s claim that life is worse than ever for African-Americans is an absurd lie. But in the third-dimension of persuasion – where Trump operates – it was brilliant.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150979891156/trumps-african-american-refr
aming
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are totally right.
Trump is going to win because there is no emotional connection to the youth.
2 Elections with Obama and the eletion against an 2nd GWB did that.
Everyone Hates Hillary. Even die hard SJW's and third and 4th wave Feminists hate Hillary.
The polls going into this debate were laughable.
Back in the 70's 33 percent of people not only answerd their phones but participated in the polls.
Today, they're getting their polling information on less than 1% of poeple who have home phones.
lol
Trump won 2 months ago.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Blacks and Latinos have always known themselves to be less that second class citizens. They already know what they can and can't expect.
I disagree with that first part of the statement. Blacks and Latinos have always been treated like second and third class citizens, for the most part.
They have come to expect that certain "treatment" from racists that make claims of superiority because of skin color or supposed intelligence.
I'm reminded of the story of Pedro Albizu Campos, who strongly believed in American exceptionalism back in the 1930s. He believed wholeheartedly in the America that espoused freedom and the "dream," of gold in the streets, etc. But, after his disillusionment with the racist nature within America, became a stalwart nationalist fighting for independence for Puerto Rico.
He had within him the right stuff. He believed and fought for the rights of his people to be a free nation. He did not succumb to the notion that being
Puerto Rican meant that he was less than anyone. In fact, the man was himself an exceptional human being, and smart as a whip. He spoke six languages, studied at the University of Vermont and graduated from Harvard Law School with the highest GPA in his law class. So no, this man would never accept his lot in life, but persevered despite the challenges set upon him throughout his adult life.
No, I would posit that the institutions of racism and bigotry thrust upon Blacks and Latinos (among others) in this country had worked their way into their psyche. So much so, that for many years their will succumbed to the
overwhelming weight and sheer relentlessness of the invisible monolith and laid bare their frayed and weary souls. But, no more. Chains and barriers have been broken. The fact that Obama made it to the White House speaks volumes to that end.
All humans have value, and we're coming to the realization that no one is superior merely because of skin pigment. Yes, there was a time when Blacks and Latinos believed in that notion, believed they were inferior.
But, no more.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Policies that help the real, real America
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You are totally right.
Trump is going to win because there is no emotional connection to the youth.
Everyone Hates Hillary. Even die hard SJW's and third and 4th wave Feminists hate Hillary.
Trump won 2 months ago.
There are some interesting ideas coming from one of the campaigns, and it doesn’t involve deportations.
Here’s what happens every election cycle: Pundits demand that politicians offer the country new ideas. Then, if and when a candidate actually does propose innovative policies, the news media pays little attention, chasing scandals or, all too often, fake scandals instead. Remember the extensive coverage last month, when Hillary Clinton laid out an ambitious mental health agenda? Neither do I.
For that matter, even the demand for new ideas is highly questionable, since there are plenty of good old ideas that haven’t been put into effect. Most advanced countries implemented some form of guaranteed health coverage decades if not generations ago. Does this mean that we should dismiss Obamacare as no big deal, since it’s just implementing a tired old agenda? The 20 million Americans who gained health coverage would beg to differ.
Still, there really are some interesting new ideas coming from one of the campaigns, and they arguably tell us a lot about how Clinton would govern.
Wait — what about the other side? Aren’t Republicans also offering new ideas? Well, I guess proposing to round up and deport 11 million people counts as a new idea. And Republicans in Congress seem to have moved past their tradition of proposing tax cuts that deliver most of their benefits to the wealthy. Now they are, instead, proposing tax cuts that deliver all of their benefits to the 1 percent — OK, actually just 99.6 percent, but who’s counting?
Back to Clinton: Much of her policy agenda could be characterized as a third Obama term, building on the center-left policies of the past eight years. That would hardly be a trivial matter. For example, independent estimates suggest that her proposed enhancements to the Affordable Care Act would extend health coverage to around 10 million more people, whereas Donald Trump’s proposed repeal of the act would cause around 20 million people to lose coverage.
In addition to defending and extending President Barack Obama’s achievements, however, Clinton is pushing a distinctive agenda centered around support for working parents. This isn’t acompletely new idea, but the scale of the Clinton proposals is off the charts compared with anything that has gone before.
One piece of that agenda involves 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for new children, help sick relatives, or recover from illness or injury. Trump, who has offered his own threadbare version of a maternal leave plan, was pants-on-fire lying when he claimed that his opponent has no such plan.
Another, even more striking piece involves helping families with young children in several ways, especially through universal preschool and public outlays — subsidies and tax credits — to hold down the cost of child care (the campaign sets a target of no more than 10 percent of income.) And everything we know, both about Clinton’s long-term interests and her current choices of advisers, suggests that family-centered issues are close to her heart. But why should helping working parents be such a priority? It looks to me like an attempt to focus on the problems of the real, real America in which most of our fellow citizens live. And that America is one in which working parents are the norm, in which stay-at-home mothers are a distinct minority, and in which the problem of how to take care of children while making ends meet is central to many people’s lives.
The numbers are striking: 64 percent of women with children younger than 6 are in the paid labor force, up from 39 percent in 1975. Most of these working mothers are surely doing so out of economic necessity, and we as a society nee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before Kennedy and Nixon faced off in the first televised presidential debate, former White House speechwriter Emmet John Hughes wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that imagined two futures. In one, as described in The Atlantic, television helped democracy flourish by bringing policy debates directly to voters. In the other future, television filled politics with a sloganized portrayal of governing that promoted charlatans.
Hughes hoped for the first but predicted the latter. Now the Grand Old Party is being led by a man who has never in his 70 years demonstrated familiarity with policy or interest in service. The former reality show host has made it this far on his carnival barker’s ability grab attention, but his routine floundered when placed in front of a quiet crowd, a prepared opponent and dutiful moderator.
At Monday’s debate, Donald Trump’s answers were hollow where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was substantive. She was the happy warrior where he was curmudgeonly. Even his hair seemed flat in contrast to Clinton’s energetic coif.
The debate revealed the real estate scion for what he is: uniquely unprepared.
The only thing worse than Republican nominee’s performance would be if he actually implemented his platform. Trade tariffs would kill jobs at the Port of Houston. The government would support a failing coal industry at the expense of Texas natural gas. Trump’s tax plan would send the national debt to unprecedented heights. Everything the aspiring politician says is a promise to make us less competitive.
None of this matters to Trump. He was born rich and he’ll stay rich.
But for anyone who cares about growing the U.S. economy and leaving a better nation for their children, Clinton described a path built on proven policy.
Admittedly, few of Clinton’s ideas are unique. On criminal justice issues, she touted diversion programs like those here in Harris County. On jobs, she pushed for profit sharing, paid family leave and other ways to bring more money and stability to workers.
Instead of talking about those working families, Trump stroked his ego. He defended stiffing small business owners. He bragged about putting himself first. He even hinted that he’s evaded taxes. Instead of talking about the future of our nation, Trump talked about his new hotel.
Disorganized, stumbling and sniffling throughout the debate, Trump proved that he clearly isn’t ready for prime time. It is alarming that someone like Trump has made it this far, but as people knew back in 1960, it certainly was predictable.
www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Her-night-9290181.
php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TRUMP: “I’ve been under audit for almost 15 years.”
Trump has declined to provide the IRS’ formal notice of audit to The Associated Press and other news outlets. And former IRS officials have expressed skepticism that anyone would be audited so frequently.
Donald Trump has never provided any evidence to the public that he is actually under audit. A letter released by his tax attorneys never used the word, merely describing his tax returns under continuous review. “Review” is not a formal term for any action by the IRS.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where is economic growth going to come from?
Trump thinks it only comes from one place. Clinton sees many.
By Lydia DePillis September 27, 2016 4:16pm
Presidents have limited power to change the fundamental drivers of economic growth, which include consumer spending, population change, and business investment. But to the extent that they can do anything, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have drastically different conceptions of where new growth will come from. The contrast was on full display during the debate Monday night at Hofstra.
Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.
Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)
Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”
There are a number of problems with that simple prescription, which itself is based on faulty assumptions about the current dynamics of global trade.
First, although Trump isn’t wrong that trade deals played a role in manufacturing job loss, the movement of manufacturing overseas was, to a large extent, going to happen anyway.
Second, even if he magically forced companies to return all of their manufacturing output to the United States, it could never replace all the jobs that were lost, since advancing technology allows companies to produce the same amount of stuff with many fewer people.
Clinton, of course, also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump has vilified. She, too, visits old manufacturing plants and talks about revitalizing them into high-tech wonder plants that will employ some of the millions of mostly men who've faded from the labor force in recent years.
But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with plans for investing in clean energy, bringing more women and disabled people into the workforce, allowing young people to go to college without taking on crippling debt, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, reining in the parasitic financial sector and putting capital to work at businesses that will use it to create jobs, not just play the stock market.
And critically, she understands the importance of raising wages for workers in the service jobs, to re-store the consumer class that weakened as well-paid manufacturing jobs faded away.
Progressives have termed this approach "middle-out economics," rather than what Clinton called the "Trumped-up trickle-down" philosophy, referring to the Reagan-era idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy in hopes that they would use the windfall to create more jobs. Targeting lower-income workers, Clinton figures, will have a bigger economic impact. "The more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow," she said.
At a recent event in Houston, Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan briefly laid out the federal budget policy he thought should have complemented low interest rates to address the aging of the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Billionaire Trump is singing the blues but not sharing the burden
They are different from you and me, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the very rich.
Donald Trump wants us to forget this as he drones on about his reverence for the little guy.
But one of his most interesting quotes from the presidential debate Monday night was a firm reminder of the Republican nominee’s otherworldly perspective.
When Hillary Clinton accused the billionaire businessman of not paying federal taxes, he responded coolly, proudly: “That makes me smart.”
I guess the late real estate magnate Leona Helmsley was feeling smart, too, until her belief that “only little people pay taxes” landed her in prison for tax evasion.
Surely, Trump has better accountants. Smarter ones. But even if Trump is smarter than the rest of us — a huuuge feat for a man who doesn’t read books — does avoiding taxes make him responsible, or fair, or any of the other upstanding qualities Americans once desired in our highest representative?
I would say no. But apparently, some people are fine with that.
When I tweeted about Trump’s remark and what it says about civic duty, or lack thereof, I got some clever responses. One suggested Trump’s taxes reveal fatal flaws in the tax code. Here was another:
“If you don’t believe in tax deductions, don’t claim them on your returns.”
Somewhere, there’s a line between fair deductions and gaming. If a billionaire is paying nothing in taxes, it crosses that line.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is he lying, or is he stupid? It's either one or the other.
He's also saying that he won the "CBS post-debate poll" - except CBS didn't run any such poll.
So I'll ask again: is he lying or is he just that fucking stupid?
In the debate he said he was "smart" if he didn't pay any federal taxes (and he didn't pay any); after the debate, within an hour of its end, he said that he never said that.
He's either too goddam stupid to be president, or he's suffering from dementia and cannot reasonably ascertain what he did or didn't say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME