Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Genuine, non-hostile question to Democrats

imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:18:10 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
A thought hit me while I was driving to class and it was something I really am pondering that I think would be worth floating to people on this site..... After Obama won in 2008 and won again in 2012, GOP congressmen and voters for the most part fell into line to oppose anything and everything he wanted to do, to the point that its reasonable that there is nothing Obama could do to get them to support him or at least cut him some slack..... It currently looks like Democrats are prepared to do the same thing for the next 4 years under a Trump presidency in an extremely ironic role reversal.

This role reversal leads to the question: What is it Trump could do that would personally convince you as a democrat (or as a leftist if you dont like the 'democrat' label) to get you to not hate him to the ends of the Earth and have a bit of an open mind about his administration?

For me personally, things like laws on abortion and funding for planned parenthood are domestic policy decisions that can be re-implemented in a future administration. There are other things though that cant simply be undone in a future administration, which is what concerns me the most, and are the things that if Trump refrains from doing would get me to cut him some slack.

If Trump 1) Does not get us into any wars in the Middle East (a la boots on the ground + carpet bombing Syria), and 2) Doesnt plunge the US into an 8%+ unemployment rate recession with his tax and economic policies, and 3) Also doesnt gigantically increase the national deficit by slashing taxes and ramping up spending elsewhere...... I can say that those things would soften my opposition enough to have more of an open mind about his administration compared to where I am right now

To other democrats: What is it Trump would have to do to get you to at least have more of an open mind about his administration?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 7:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
All I care about is what he does with the Supreme Court. My personal assets are secure enough that very little Trump can do will hurt them. However, I'll probably be investing in some kinds of raw materials futures very soon. He says he's going to rebuild infrastructure, and he seems like the type to deliver. I'm going to make some money off of this.
Tsar of DDO
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 11:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago

This role reversal leads to the question: What is it Trump could do that would personally convince you as a democrat (or as a leftist if you dont like the 'democrat' label) to get you to not hate him to the ends of the Earth and have a bit of an open mind about his administration?

For me personally, things like laws on abortion and funding for planned parenthood are domestic policy decisions that can be re-implemented in a future administration. There are other things though that cant simply be undone in a future administration, which is what concerns me the most, and are the things that if Trump refrains from doing would get me to cut him some slack.

If Trump 1) Does not get us into any wars in the Middle East (a la boots on the ground + carpet bombing Syria), and 2) Doesnt plunge the US into an 8%+ unemployment rate recession with his tax and economic policies, and 3) Also doesnt gigantically increase the national deficit by slashing taxes and ramping up spending elsewhere...... I can say that those things would soften my opposition enough to have more of an open mind about his administration compared to where I am right now

To other democrats: What is it Trump would have to do to get you to at least have more of an open mind about his administration?

There is hope that Trump is still a liberal (as he has been most of his whole life up until before he ran). However, I do not dislike Trump because of policy. I dislike Trump because he has made a mockery of the USA (to put it lightly) and blatantly conned a bunch supporters with conspiracies, lies and nonsense. To truly not hate him, he would have to apologize for his conduct, and admit that he is a fraud.

However, the Dems should be open to working with Trump to get liberal laws passed. Trump seems like he is now a Keynesian as he wants stimulus spending. The Dems should press Trump to live up to his "working class" image and pass laws for these people.

I would truly hate Trump is he passes tax cuts for the rich, that he pays for with deficits, after campaigning for the working man, and saying that Obama is fiscally irresponsible (even though after a recession is when you are supposed to stimulus spend, not 8 years after).
warren42
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Not a democrat, but a hater of Trump.

I think he'd have to not act on the Muslim ban, first and foremost. That's number one.
No stop and frisk.
No restrictions on free speech
No cruel&unusual punishment
No wall: no problem with enforcing immigration laws, just a waste of money. Wall=ineffective
Nothing to reverse gay marriage or the like

Mostly social issues actually. As far as most foreign and domestic policy I'm never going to "support" him but I won't be anti-Trump (same as I am with Obama). he'd have to do these things though:

No using nukes "just because"
No pointless fights with foreign nations
Be careful of Russia. Just cause Putin supports you doesn't make him a good guy or good ally.

I'd also prefer to get out of the Middle East but that doesn't look like it'll happen.
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:14:44 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 6:18:10 PM, imabench wrote:
A thought hit me while I was driving to class and it was something I really am pondering that I think would be worth floating to people on this site..... After Obama won in 2008 and won again in 2012, GOP congressmen and voters for the most part fell into line to oppose anything and everything he wanted to do, to the point that its reasonable that there is nothing Obama could do to get them to support him or at least cut him some slack..... It currently looks like Democrats are prepared to do the same thing for the next 4 years under a Trump presidency in an extremely ironic role reversal.

This role reversal leads to the question: What is it Trump could do that would personally convince you as a democrat (or as a leftist if you dont like the 'democrat' label) to get you to not hate him to the ends of the Earth and have a bit of an open mind about his administration?

For me personally, things like laws on abortion and funding for planned parenthood are domestic policy decisions that can be re-implemented in a future administration. There are other things though that cant simply be undone in a future administration, which is what concerns me the most, and are the things that if Trump refrains from doing would get me to cut him some slack.

If Trump 1) Does not get us into any wars in the Middle East (a la boots on the ground + carpet bombing Syria), and 2) Doesnt plunge the US into an 8%+ unemployment rate recession with his tax and economic policies, and 3) Also doesnt gigantically increase the national deficit by slashing taxes and ramping up spending elsewhere...... I can say that those things would soften my opposition enough to have more of an open mind about his administration compared to where I am right now

To other democrats: What is it Trump would have to do to get you to at least have more of an open mind about his administration?

He also has to delete his twitter account.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 10:19:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:06:09 AM, warren42 wrote:
No using nukes "just because"

Lol?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 6:18:10 PM, imabench wrote:
A thought hit me while I was driving to class and it was something I really am pondering that I think would be worth floating to people on this site..... After Obama won in 2008 and won again in 2012, GOP congressmen and voters for the most part fell into line to oppose anything and everything he wanted to do, to the point that its reasonable that there is nothing Obama could do to get them to support him or at least cut him some slack..... It currently looks like Democrats are prepared to do the same thing for the next 4 years under a Trump presidency in an extremely ironic role reversal.

This role reversal leads to the question: What is it Trump could do that would personally convince you as a democrat (or as a leftist if you dont like the 'democrat' label) to get you to not hate him to the ends of the Earth and have a bit of an open mind about his administration?

For me personally, things like laws on abortion and funding for planned parenthood are domestic policy decisions that can be re-implemented in a future administration. There are other things though that cant simply be undone in a future administration, which is what concerns me the most, and are the things that if Trump refrains from doing would get me to cut him some slack.

If Trump 1) Does not get us into any wars in the Middle East (a la boots on the ground + carpet bombing Syria), and 2) Doesnt plunge the US into an 8%+ unemployment rate recession with his tax and economic policies, and 3) Also doesnt gigantically increase the national deficit by slashing taxes and ramping up spending elsewhere...... I can say that those things would soften my opposition enough to have more of an open mind about his administration compared to where I am right now

To other democrats: What is it Trump would have to do to get you to at least have more of an open mind about his administration?

One of my best friends is a text book religious democrat. In my last conversation with them, like most democrats, they wanted a third term for Obama. I said I liked him too, but I don't think he's sustainable for major areas in America. We can't afford him forever, and it was time for a change, and hopefully we get lucky with Trump. Okay, election diffused.....They've already looked over his ideas (the real ones, not his campaign) and come to the conclusion that they don't all suck.....except the wall, but that's just going to happen since he politically needs to maintain some sort of barrier now that his entire campaign was launched off of it. That's accepted. Its just has to happen, legislature allowing.

Like most sane Americans, we wound up concluding that there is a possibility the 'wall' is politically boom, bust, or forgotten that hinges entirely on how he decides he wants to manage illegal immigrants already in the country, and his immigration policy for people wishing to enter. That's the main concern there.

Their biggest fear was over repercussions from replacing parts of Obama's health care system. No one knows what is going to happen with Trump backed by republicans and people are being encouraged to utilize reproductive welfare while they can. Its a major concern for me as well, as I think reproductive education, and accessible birth control are one of the best investments we can make for the economic well being of the people. This is a major concern, but hopefully people are allowing new representatives to speak on potential improvements in efficiency before shooting down their ideas. The plan seems to be repeal and replace. Replace with what? You can be sure democrats will be on the watch.

Thirdly, Trump was advocating for 'extreme' tax cuts and there has been republican noise for years of taking tax cuts too far without decreasing spending. That's insane, and its a major concern. However, we concluded that IF Obama's historically spending trends were no longer a pattern, IF we reduce foreign conflict, and IF Trump can actually get countries to pay their share for our military efforts, and IF Trump uses his insider knowledge for good and eliminates excessive tax breaks for the top 1 percent, (something democrats would totally agree on) that tax cuts (maybe not as extreme as he was proposing) might not be the end of the world, maybe even acceptable....Its a big shift in mentality for a religious democrat that loves Obama though.

What this democrat was concerned with, and I think we all are, is Trump becoming politically or maybe even egotistically motivated to fulfill his tax cuts and taking the opposite form of Obama's broad spending approach with the same mistake, and cutting programs that are integral to national improvement without serious consideration.

Lastly, like a lot of Americans, (I think the majority) this democrat is a sucker for "going green". She doesn't really practice what she preaches in this regard, like most Americans, so its obvious she'll be swayed by political jargon. She just likes to feel good about advocates for carbon neutrality, and "strong environmental protection" whatever that is. Trump doesn't seem to give a sh!t because he has bigger fish to fry at the moment, and I think although that's not a truly sincere concern for most of America, it is something that democrats can use against him, and probably will if predictions hold out.

Obama wasn't that environmentally great either, but his image was. I like the momentum he contributes. Building off of existing principle, he did make some real progress in some areas, primarily the energy sector, and I believe his administrations pressure on energy consumption was a contributing factor to progress in a fairly stagnant industry that had some serious catching up to do compared to already present European standards. "Detroit" is rolling out some pretty sweet rides, and the Japanese are actually having some serious competition now. Regardless of his administration's contribution, association can be drawn since appliances are arguably improved at a rapid rate, as I'm sure a lot of industrial equipment is as well. A lot of waste that was practically being donated to the fossil fuel barons was cut out and its just going to get better, partly because of government incentive. It was a wise investment in my opinion, and a great way to fight wealth gap while keeping things fair and moving the economy forward.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:09:33 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:51:57 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/9/2016 6:18:10 PM, imabench wrote:
A thought hit me while I was driving to class and it was something I really am pondering that I think would be worth floating to people on this site..... After Obama won in 2008 and won again in 2012, GOP congressmen and voters for the most part fell into line to oppose anything and everything he wanted to do, to the point that its reasonable that there is nothing Obama could do to get them to support him or at least cut him some slack..... It currently looks like Democrats are prepared to do the same thing for the next 4 years under a Trump presidency in an extremely ironic role reversal.

This role reversal leads to the question: What is it Trump could do that would personally convince you as a democrat (or as a leftist if you dont like the 'democrat' label) to get you to not hate him to the ends of the Earth and have a bit of an open mind about his administration?

For me personally, things like laws on abortion and funding for planned parenthood are domestic policy decisions that can be re-implemented in a future administration. There are other things though that cant simply be undone in a future administration, which is what concerns me the most, and are the things that if Trump refrains from doing would get me to cut him some slack.

If Trump 1) Does not get us into any wars in the Middle East (a la boots on the ground + carpet bombing Syria), and 2) Doesnt plunge the US into an 8%+ unemployment rate recession with his tax and economic policies, and 3) Also doesnt gigantically increase the national deficit by slashing taxes and ramping up spending elsewhere...... I can say that those things would soften my opposition enough to have more of an open mind about his administration compared to where I am right now

To other democrats: What is it Trump would have to do to get you to at least have more of an open mind about his administration?

One of my best friends is a text book religious democrat. In my last conversation with them, like most democrats, they wanted a third term for Obama. I said I liked him too, but I don't think he's sustainable for major areas in America. We can't afford him forever, and it was time for a change, and hopefully we get lucky with Trump. Okay, election diffused.....They've already looked over his ideas (the real ones, not his campaign) and come to the conclusion that they don't all suck.....except the wall, but that's just going to happen since he politically needs to maintain some sort of barrier now that his entire campaign was launched off of it. That's accepted. Its just has to happen, legislature allowing.

Like most sane Americans, we wound up concluding that there is a possibility the 'wall' is politically boom, bust, or forgotten that hinges entirely on how he decides he wants to manage illegal immigrants already in the country, and his immigration policy for people wishing to enter. That's the main concern there.

Being anti-immigrant does not serve the country well. Looking at the ratio of youth to ageing we need to tilt the balance toward the young in demographics to sustain social security. US birth rates have declined substantially immigration is a partial answer to this predicament.


Their biggest fear was over repercussions from replacing parts of Obama's health care system. No one knows what is going to happen with Trump backed by republicans and people are being encouraged to utilize reproductive welfare while they can. Its a major concern for me as well, as I think reproductive education, and accessible birth control are one of the best investments we can make for the economic well being of the people.

I would agree here. The Republicans, not only want to dismantle the ACA but will also will use their reproductive agenda as a bargaining chip. Currently pro-choice opinion is about 54%, but pro contraceptive is 89%. This being the greater of the two issues due to this sidelining the former; access and affordability being key, especially to the poor. Rubio, Santorum, Cruz, Ayotte and numerous others wish to limit access especially to those receiving government social aid, defunding Title X and lifting requisites for insurance carriers. Being a pragmatist restricting availability especially to those of low income is problematic, it will increase the population of those on social welfare programs and continue the cycle of poverty. Family planning is a basic women's right.

This is a major concern, but hopefully people are allowing new representatives to speak on potential improvements in efficiency before shooting down their ideas. The plan seems to be repeal and replace. Replace with what? You can be sure democrats will be on the watch.

They can't completely repeal and leave 20 M people out in the cold. Cross state insurance coverage, I don't believe, will bring about competition and lower prices. Their market prefers is not to market to those that are low income due to their higher rates of illness. High prices keeps this risks pool out.


Thirdly, Trump was advocating for 'extreme' tax cuts and there has been republican noise for years of taking tax cuts too far without decreasing spending. That's insane, and its a major concern. However, we concluded that IF Obama's historically spending trends were no longer a pattern, IF we reduce foreign conflict, and IF Trump can actually get countries to pay their share for our military efforts, and IF Trump uses his insider knowledge for good and eliminates excessive tax breaks for the top 1 percent, (something democrats would totally agree on) that tax cuts (maybe not as extreme as he was proposing) might not be the end of the world, maybe even acceptable....Its a big shift in mentality for a religious democrat that loves Obama though.


What this democrat was concerned with, and I think we all are, is Trump becoming politically or maybe even egotistically motivated to fulfill his tax cuts and taking the opposite form of Obama's broad spending approach with the same mistake, and cutting programs that are integral to national improvement without serious consideration.



Lastly, like a lot of Americans, (I think the majority) this democrat is a sucker for "going green". She doesn't really practice what she preaches in this regard, like most Americans, so its obvious she'll be swayed by political jargon. She just likes to feel good about advocates for carbon neutrality, and "strong environmental protection" whatever that is. Trump doesn't seem to give a sh!t because he has bigger fish to fry at the moment, and I think although that's not a truly sincere concern for most of America, it is something that democrats can use against him, and probably will if predictions hold out.

Obama wasn't that environmentally great either, but his image was. I like the momentum he contributes. Building off of existing principle, he did make some real progress in some areas, primarily the energy sector, and I believe his administrations pressure on energy consumption was a contributing factor to progress in a fairly stagnant industry that had some serious catching up to do compared to already present European standards. "Detroit" is rolling out some pretty sweet rides, and the Japanese are actually having some serious competition now. Regardless of his administration's contribution, association can be drawn since appliances are arguably improved at a rapid rate, as I'm sure a lot of industrial equipment is as well. A lot of waste that was practically being donated to the fossil fuel barons was cut out and its just going to get better, partly because of government incentive. It was a wise investment in my opinion, and a great way to fight wealth gap while keeping things fair and moving the economy forward.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 6:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Thirdly, Trump was advocating for 'extreme' tax cuts and there has been republican noise for years of taking tax cuts too far without decreasing spending. That's insane, and its a major concern. However, we concluded that IF Obama's historically spending trends were no longer a pattern, IF we reduce foreign conflict, and IF Trump can actually get countries to pay their share for our military efforts, and IF Trump uses his insider knowledge for good and eliminates excessive tax breaks for the top 1 percent, (something democrats would totally agree on) that tax cuts (maybe not as extreme as he was proposing) might not be the end of the world, maybe even acceptable....Its a big shift in mentality for a religious democrat that loves Obama though.

I'm all for lower taxes on business, but with the caveat that all loop holes that has allowed the likes of the 20% of those on the S&P 500 to not to pay any taxes be closed. As much as Trump states that this will occur, it's highly unlikely with the influence these companies have and have donated vast sums to the Republican party.


Repatriating the over 2T in stashed overseas accounts by giving then a tax break is problematic as well. First, giving these companies a pass is a bad precedence. Second, what is to keep these companies from using this cash merely for stock buy backs, a boon for the markets but little else. Also, what's to keep them from further investing in growth of industries overseas where cheap labor, low taxes and lesser enviornmental standards are attractive. The IRS will gain in the short term, but I don't really see from the corporate end, any of the money being reinvested in the US to expand jobs.

With the massive tax cuts, there has to be spending cuts. Most likely it will be with SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Talk of privatizing SS will come up again. Between Trump's plans on expansion of military, continued war in the middle east and infrastructure spending will create even greater pressure to decrease social programs, a much liked prospect on the Rep. side. This could very well be appealing to the business side of Trump and he has implemented such a move in the past by cutting employee benefits when his businesses were less profitable.

What this democrat was concerned with, and I think we all are, is Trump becoming politically or maybe even egotistically motivated to fulfill his tax cuts and taking the opposite form of Obama's broad spending approach with the same mistake, and cutting programs that are integral to national improvement without serious consideration.



Lastly, like a lot of Americans, (I think the majority) this democrat is a sucker for "going green". She doesn't really practice what she preaches in this regard, like most Americans, so its obvious she'll be swayed by political jargon. She just likes to feel good about advocates for carbon neutrality, and "strong environmental protection" whatever that is. Trump doesn't seem to give a sh!t because he has bigger fish to fry at the moment, and I think although that's not a truly sincere concern for most of America, it is something that democrats can use against him, and probably will if predictions hold out.


Trump will back out of the G8 Paris accord. The fossil fuel industry contributes of roughly 7% of our GDP and is heavily subsidized. Rate of return on investment on alternative energy is longer term v oil, gas and coal. Where the money speaks is on Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry and on the user end, cheap fuel is critically important, $3 per gal gas or heating oil is not something the public will not tolerate. There's been no long term plan on how to transition as a nation to alternative energy, therein lies the rub. It's been focused on emissions and consumption rather than gradual introduction of alt-energy technology. Nothing has been done on the education front to prepare the up and coming to fill the niche' in skills needed to develop and maintain alternative energy platforms despite it being written the the cards for over 20 years; I don't see any development in this area during this administration. Unless there is a major environmental accident or California is again a smog capital of the US.

Obama wasn't that environmentally great either, but his image was. I like the momentum he contributes. Building off of existing principle, he did make some real progress in some areas, primarily the energy sector, and I believe his administrations pressure on energy consumption was a contributing factor to progress in a fairly stagnant industry that had some serious catching up to do compared to already present European standards. "Detroit" is rolling out some pretty sweet rides, and the Japanese are actually having some serious competition now. Regardless of his administration's contribution, association can be drawn since appliances are arguably improved at a rapid rate, as I'm sure a lot of industrial equipment is as well. A lot of waste that was practically being donated to the fossil fuel barons was cut out and its just going to get better, partly because of government incentive. It was a wise investment in my opinion, and a great way to fight wealth gap while keeping things fair and moving the economy forward.
warren42
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 3:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 10:19:55 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:06:09 AM, warren42 wrote:
No using nukes "just because"

Lol?

http://www.nbcnews.com...

I don't want him hitting the button on a gut feeling
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
Death23
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but do you actually know what you are talking about? I'm curious what GOP garbage is. Might as well hear it on this website.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Davery79
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:30:25 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

Why does everyone care so much about taxing the rich less? They can afford to pay someone a lot of money to not pay any taxes anyway. In Trumps case, I bet he payed a bunch of lawyers (this is just an example, real numbers are irrelevant) $1 mil to save himself $2 mil in taxes. That would not work for the middle class and poor. We can't afford the top notch tax lawyers to find every loophole that the IRS put into place. We won't pay $1mil to stop us from paying a few grand. It doesn't make sense, but makes sense in his case. Also in order to get these tax breaks, he must do something that contributes to society, not just his foundation. Donations.... old furniture he doesn't need anymore, that someone else could definitely use..company vehicles.. etc. The rich will always have the ability to do this. The difference is the tax cuts on businesses which is what will really contribute to the economy.
Death23
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 10:05:48 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but do you actually know what you are talking about? I'm curious what GOP garbage is. Might as well hear it on this website.

There have been various iterations over the years. I'm not going to put them on a platter for you to look at.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 10:30:25 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

Why does everyone care so much about taxing the rich less? They can afford to pay someone a lot of money to not pay any taxes anyway. In Trumps case, I bet he payed a bunch of lawyers (this is just an example, real numbers are irrelevant) $1 mil to save himself $2 mil in taxes. That would not work for the middle class and poor. We can't afford the top notch tax lawyers to find every loophole that the IRS put into place. We won't pay $1mil to stop us from paying a few grand. It doesn't make sense, but makes sense in his case. Also in order to get these tax breaks, he must do something that contributes to society, not just his foundation. Donations.... old furniture he doesn't need anymore, that someone else could definitely use..company vehicles.. etc. The rich will always have the ability to do this. The difference is the tax cuts on businesses which is what will really contribute to the economy.

I think the reason people hate tax cuts is generally tied to a program they like being moved towards the front of the firing line.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Danbury
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:49:46 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The problem I have with Trump is that I believe strongly that Donald Trump is a man with severe personality disorders and a pathological personality, including malignant narcissism. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Trump possesses any wisdom or has the ability to make wise decisions based on knowledge, reason, insight, and an understanding of history. Instead, Trump's sole measure of making decisions is himself, is how HE will be affected. I think Trump has been a fraud and a conman for so long that he doesn't know any other way to be, and that is not a personality suited for the presidency of the US.

I think Trump will be a disastrous president in many ways.
Whether Democrats obstruct or not should be about the issue, NOT about who the president is or about future electoral prospects, which is what the GOP, of course, has solely been about. they have to go to work, and this is the president they are stuck with. But Democrats are also in the minority now. This is all on Republicans now.
Have fun, boys.
Death23
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 10:55:31 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 10:30:25 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

Why does everyone care so much about taxing the rich less? They can afford to pay someone a lot of money to not pay any taxes anyway. In Trumps case, I bet he payed a bunch of lawyers (this is just an example, real numbers are irrelevant) $1 mil to save himself $2 mil in taxes. That would not work for the middle class and poor. We can't afford the top notch tax lawyers to find every loophole that the IRS put into place. Those have already been found. We won't pay $1mil to stop us from paying a few grand. It doesn't make sense, but makes sense in his case. Also in order to get these tax breaks, he must do something that contributes to society, not just his foundation. Donations.... old furniture he doesn't need anymore, that someone else could definitely use..company vehicles.. etc. The rich will always have the ability to do this. The difference is the tax cuts on businesses which is what will really contribute to the economy.

People care because wealth and income inequality is a huge issue, in this country especially, and tax policy is very much related to that. Tax loopholes are known for the most part and remain because the GOP uses them as bargaining chips. Supply side economics is bologna, by the way.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 11:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.

The only way we are to get people off of social welfare programs, back to work is to solve the root cause that has been ignored since the Reagan years, stagnant wages due to corporate protectionist policies, weakening of unions and the fact that trickle down economics does not work.
Fernyx
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 2:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 7:03:02 PM, YYW wrote:
All I care about is what he does with the Supreme Court.
Davery79
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 3:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:27:57 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.



The only way we are to get people off of social welfare programs, back to work is to solve the root cause that has been ignored since the Reagan years, stagnant wages due to corporate protectionist policies, weakening of unions and the fact that trickle down economics does not work.

If implemented correctly, I think it can work. Please don't use Tennessee, or the Reagan administration as examples of failed trickle down. Bush was a bit different, and plagued with indictments/corruption. Do you have other sources of where it has failed? I would like to read about them.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 5:03:39 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 3:31:40 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:27:57 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 11/15/2016 9:50:11 PM, Death23 wrote:
He'd have to have better domestic policies than fvck the poor. His plan is tax cuts for the rich and get rid of Obamacare and replace it with some watered down GOP garbage that doesn't do sh!t.



The only way we are to get people off of social welfare programs, back to work is to solve the root cause that has been ignored since the Reagan years, stagnant wages due to corporate protectionist policies, weakening of unions and the fact that trickle down economics does not work.

If implemented correctly, I think it can work. Please don't use Tennessee, or the Reagan administration as examples of failed trickle down. Bush was a bit different, and plagued with indictments/corruption. Do you have other sources of where it has failed? I would like to read about them.

Plenty to go over.
http://democracyjournal.org...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
http://www.epi.org...
http://www.epi.org...
http://robertreich.org...