jmog;1807050 wrote:One has to do with the security of our nation, the other has to do with how rich a person is.

Eh, if someone thinks he acquired some of his wealth through dirty dealings or through tax evasion, the latter might have to do with how corrupt a person is.

QuakerOats;1807052 wrote:She runs a criminal, money-laundering enterprise, and some on here: a) accept her return at face value, and b) are more worried about the other guy's tax returns.

Look, if the former hasn't been substantiated legally (meaning if it hasn't gone beyond speculation), there's really no hard justification to not accept her returns at face value.

For the record, I'm not concerned with the tax returns from either of them. If I had to gamble, I'd wager that both have had cooked books at some point in their careers.

O-Trap;1807054 wrote:Eh, if someone thinks he acquired some of his wealth through dirty dealings or through tax evasion, the latter might have to do with how corrupt a person is.



Look, if the former hasn't been substantiated legally (meaning if it hasn't gone beyond speculation), there's really no hard justification to not accept her returns at face value.

For the record, I'm not concerned with the tax returns from either of them. If I had to gamble, I'd wager that both have had cooked books at some point in their careers.

logic and common sense negates that possibility. He is such a public persona that if any of that was the case he would have already been investigated. People want it out there mainly to find something to nit pick about like they did with Romney.

jmog;1807055 wrote:logic and common sense negates that possibility. He is such a public persona that if any of that was the case he would have already been investigated. People want it out there mainly to find something to nit pick about like they did with Romney.

Not really. If anything, Trump making lots of money (and occasionally losing lots of money) wouldn't pop anything up on the IRS's radar. He's been the CEO of the Trump organization for almost the entirety of his adult life, but given his niche, huge losses wouldn't be outside the norm, either.

He's a public persona, but all that means is that he makes a lot of money. Nobody was really going into the details of that until he began running for president, but that doesn't mean there was never reason to do so. As it stands, there seems to be a pretty wide swing of estimates as to how much he's worth. That alone would cast some doubt.

And too, even if there had been grounds before, I would contest that the stakes are different here. People were willing to let some funny books go with Trump the CEO/media personality/billionaire, because that's mostly expected among people of his ilk. It's a different game when you run for president, and rightfully so.

Making hay about tax returns and how people LEGALLY take advantage of saving money is stupid

Spock;1807060 wrote:Making hay about tax returns and how people LEGALLY take advantage of saving money is stupid

No disagreement here. Taxation is theft with legal permission anyway.

ptown_trojans_1;1807014 wrote:I like Clinton's FP views and accept she is the lesser of two evils.

I honestly think that her foreign policy record is not so good. Her VIEWS might very well align with yours, but her results are dismal.

P_town is on the federal payroll. His views might not be aligned but his lifeline is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1807125 wrote:P_town is on the federal payroll. His views might not be aligned but his lifeline is.

I always laugh how he seems to have fairly liberal views, even on foreign policy....but then as soon as you mention cutting defense spending he starts talking like a neocon.

O-Trap;1807057 wrote:Not really. If anything, Trump making lots of money (and occasionally losing lots of money) wouldn't pop anything up on the IRS's radar.

The problem with this notion in today's political climate is the fact that the IRS will and does target certain groups of people. Trump in particular? I don't know. But making and losing money doesn't seem to be the criteria - how you vote, does :/

QuakerOats;1807005 wrote: If you want to talk about truly "insane ideas", please start there. You are so far in the tank and the stranglehold of the big spenders, you have no idea of what reality is anymore.

Oh, the irony.

CenterBHSFan;1807239 wrote:

I laughed, I repped.

QuakerOats;1807049 wrote:When she releases her emails and her health records.

jmog;1807050 wrote:Apples to oranges and you know it.

One has to do with the security of our nation, the other has to do with how rich a person is.

Spock;1807060 wrote:Making hay about tax returns and how people LEGALLY take advantage of saving money is stupid

The two are different, but Trump is the first nominee since 72 to not release his tax returns. If he is legit and worth as much as he says he is, then let us, the public view it.
Since he has no political experience, his business ventures and worth should face public domain and be open to us all. Otherwise, it is more, trust me.

CenterBHSFan;1807119 wrote:I honestly think that her foreign policy record is not so good. Her VIEWS might very well align with yours, but her results are dismal.

I am assuming you mean Libya, cause otherwise, her results and views have been actually more hawkish and have not been dismal.

She was in favor of going in to take Bin Ladin. She was in favor in increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. She was in favor of the all the drone strikes during the Obama 1st term. She was in favor of trying to keep a residue force and State presence in Iraq post SOFA exit. She was in favor of actually going into Syria and arming the rebels. She was in favor of harsh sanctions again Iran. In most of those cases, her views were supposed by SECDEF Gates and CIA Director Petreaus.

bases_loaded;1807125 wrote:P_town is on the federal payroll. His views might not be aligned but his lifeline is.

Not at all man. I am a contractor, so I am on a private payroll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gut;1807137 wrote:I always laugh how he seems to have fairly liberal views, even on foreign policy....but then as soon as you mention cutting defense spending he starts talking like a neocon.

Neocon, no. I just have nuanced view of the budget. Eliminate wasteful programs: F-35, some ballistic missile defense, nuclear B-61, new cruise missile, redundant IT systems, overlapping Program Management offices and systems, Marine land craft, etc.. Spending can increase on pay, Army Corps infrastructure, ships, nuclear triad, remodeling DOD healthcare.

But, the main reason I say Clinton is better, is at the very least she is a hawk and plays within the existing international order. You can disagree with her and say her policies are bad, Libya number 1, but at least she acts within the same system.

Trump would destroy the existing international order the U.S. set up since 1945. He would not support allies, would pull out of agreements, and provide strategic instability to the international order. There is a reason why Republican foreign policy leaders since 1972 have said they are not supporting Trump.

Big picture, Trump's strategy of trying to grab Penn, Ohio, FL, and the rust belt is failing, and failing badly.
Nearly every poll has him down in those swing states, and some double digits.
538 has Clinton's chance of winning up to 77.6% and has her sweeping all of the swing states.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Trump has a lot of work to do and has to pivot. He has to control his mouth as that is what is killing him with voters.

ptown_trojans_1;1807246 wrote:Big picture, Trump's strategy of trying to grab Penn, Ohio, FL, and the rust belt is failing, and failing badly.
Nearly every poll has him down in those swing states, and some double digits.
538 has Clinton's chance of winning up to 77.6% and has her sweeping all of the swing states.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Trump has a lot of work to do and has to pivot. He has to control his mouth as that is what is killing him with voters.

To be fair, he is being outspent on ads almost 10 to 1 in those swing states.

In regards to his mouth killing him, I wholeheartedly agree with most of that thought. Although there are some things he says outright that I agree with there are more things that he spews out that I don't agree with. So the balance is not tipped in his favor as far as I'm concerned.

The media grabs 30 seconds worth of 30 minute speeches and runs with it. No context ever. Hillary runs ads with them. That's all she has on him and were ok with all her faults? Pay attention to what happens this week with the shitstorm in Milwaukee v


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

just wait for the debates. Trump will win them

Spock;1807284 wrote:just wait for the debates. Trump will win them

LOL

I will predict how the debates turn out:

- The outlets (and, for the most part, individuals) that tend to lean Democrat will say Clinton won after each one.
- The outlets (and, for the most part, individuals) that tend to lean Republican will say Trump won after each one.

Do you know why I think this?

Because it happens every fucking election.

I hope I didn't spoil the surprise.

I hope Donald Trump does well during the debates. Hes very good at talking tough and i dont know if hillary is going to be able to handle it. Hillary has a lot of backround but when put against someone as aggresive and talented as Trump, it is going to be a great showdown.

Very good at talking.......................

O-Trap;1807355 wrote:LOL

I will predict how the debates turn out:

- The outlets (and, for the most part, individuals) that tend to lean Democrat will say Clinton won after each one.
- The outlets (and, for the most part, individuals) that tend to lean Republican will say Trump won after each one.

Do you know why I think this?

Because it happens every fucking election.

I hope I didn't spoil the surprise.

This.
Debates may make a small difference to some undecided, but it will not make or break the election.

Clinton will not have a knock out of Trump, nor will Trump have a massive slam of Clinton. Both will be prepared and both camps will walk away saying they won.

ptown_trojans_1;1807395 wrote:This.
Debates may make a small difference to some undecided, but it will not make or break the election.

Clinton will not have a knock out of Trump, nor will Trump have a massive slam of Clinton. Both will be prepared and both camps will walk away saying they won.

I'm hoping for the exact opposite of this. I could see Hillary baiting Trump over and over resulting in more dumbass comments. I could also see Trump absolutely destroying her regarding Benghazi and the emails.

Dr.Pizza;1807384 wrote:I hope Donald Trump does well during the debates. Hes very good at talking tough and i dont know if hillary is going to be able to handle it. Hillary has a lot of backround but when put against someone as aggresive and talented as Trump, it is going to be a great showdown.

He gaffes as much as Joe Biden (if Joe were allowed to talk this much). How on earth do you think he's better when he opens his mouth?

Automatik;1807396 wrote:I'm hoping for the exact opposite of this. I could see Hillary baiting Trump over and over resulting in more dumbass comments. I could also see Trump absolutely destroying her regarding Benghazi and the emails.

The blindly partisan will see one of these happen. It will, coincidentally, be a favorable outcome given the respective views. Republicans will see Trump destroy Clinton with little jabs about Benghazi and the email server. Democrats will see Clinton destroy Trump by baiting him into saying something stupid regarding the working class, discrimination, or some such other hot button topic.

This Trump speech is amazing.
He pretty much abandoned the long time R position on Iraq and said that the Iraq war was a mistake, we never should have went in, and there was no WMD.
He stated his opposition to the war, but it is known his position was all over the place on the war.
He stated we should have kept the oil in Iraq, which makes no freaking sense. Yeah, let's invade the country and steal their oil. Geesh that would have played right into the Iraq war opponents view we went into Iraq for the oil. Dumb.

He said he wants to have a conference to tackle radical Islam with Israel and Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure that will not happen as neither will agree to be at a conference.
He also said he will turn off the internet for ISIS. I'm not sure how he will do that....

ptown_trojans_1;1807420 wrote:This Trump speech is amazing.
He pretty much abandoned the long time R position on Iraq and said that the Iraq war was a mistake, we never should have went in, and there was no WMD.
He stated his opposition to the war, but it is known his position was all over the place on the war.
He stated we should have kept the oil in Iraq, which makes no freaking sense. Yeah, let's invade the country and steal their oil. Geesh that would have played right into the Iraq war opponents view we went into Iraq for the oil. Dumb.

He said he wants to have a conference to tackle radical Islam with Israel and Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure that will not happen as neither will agree to be at a conference.
He also said he will turn off the internet for ISIS. I'm not sure how he will do that....

Well, technically, there are things he could use to make it more difficult for them to use the Internet, but he's dumb if he thinks that would stop any of the radicals in the country, who are likely already familiar with more covert uses of the web.