Octopus Overlords

Busey is just angling for a cabinet position.

Max Peck wrote:

Chaz wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Moliere wrote: Her response ad.

Not sure if it's a win for her but it's certainly a loss for Trump. His shit isn't funny anymore.

I liked the ad in principle, but man, two non-white faces out of what, 20+ shown? Not exactly the most inclusive.

Well, it is a GOP ad...

I'm going to guess that most of the featured women were taken from a pool of staffers/supporters/friends. I don't think they were cast actors. I could be wrong. But given that I don't think it's particularly troubling. It's reflective of her female base.

Trump doesn't correct nutball racist over claims that Obama is a Muslim. Then helps to assure questioner that he's looking into the problem of allowing Muslims to exist in this country.

He has to know he's the candidate of choice for every white supremacist hate group in the U.S., right?

Wow, that was stupendous.

Then I noticed that the clip was from a rally less than an hour from my house. Then I got super sad (but not really surprised, NH gets REALLY red when you get a little north of MA and outside the bigger population centers).

hepcat wrote:Trump doesn't correct nutball racist over claims that Obama is a Muslim. Then helps to assure questioner that he's looking into the problem of allowing Muslims to exist in this country.

He has to know he's the candidate of choice for every white supremacist hate group in the U.S., right?

Trump used dog-whistle politics to gain the lead, and now he's got to dial it back to stay there. I wonder if his fans will let him.

hepcat wrote:Trump doesn't correct nutball racist over claims that Obama is a Muslim. Then helps to assure questioner that he's looking into the problem of allowing Muslims to exist in this country.

He has to know he's the candidate of choice for every white supremacist hate group in the U.S., right?

Lest we forget...

A woman at a John McCain event insisted that Obama was “an Arab.” “No ma’am,” McCain replied. “He’s a decent, family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”

I may not agree with his positions most of the time, but McCain does conduct himself more like a statesman than most of his peers.

I'm not sure what Trump thinks freedom of speech is but:

a) He is not a government agent
b) countering speech with more speech is exactly how it's supposed to work.

Stupid media, always getting it wrong. It's their fault.

hepcat wrote:I may not agree with his positions most of the time, but McCain does conduct himself more like a statesman than most of his peers.

The problem with his response, is that it implies that "A-rabs" aren't and can't be any of those things.

Still, it's a great response in defense of Obama. Which was more important at the time than defending Arabs.

If I claim that you're African American, and someone responds, "no, he's a good guy", there's a problem.

Again, McCain handled it better than most politicians would have, so I'm happy enough. He certain puts Trump to shame, which is always good.

Given the mood of the moment, McCain was responding not to the claim that Obama is an Arab but to the idea that he's an imposter, a foreign citizen, and a sleeper agent of sinister enemies.

You know, precisely the kind of idiot Birtherism that Trump latched onto and rode to prominence a few years later.

hepcat wrote:Trump doesn't correct nutball racist over claims that Obama is a Muslim. Then helps to assure questioner that he's looking into the problem of allowing Muslims to exist in this country.

He has to know he's the candidate of choice for every white supremacist hate group in the U.S., right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

hepcat wrote:I may not agree with his positions most of the time, but McCain does conduct himself more like a statesman than most of his peers.

Five years in the Hanoi Hilton will do that to you. I don't think that was one of Donald's hotels? Just don't show McCain a queen of diamonds.

<no need for me to be mean...even if I preface it with a raspberry>

hepcat wrote:I may not agree with his positions most of the time, but McCain does conduct himself more like a statesman than most of his peers.

He's a loner our there, with clearly an instinct to do right. I always recall that 'Arab' moment as particularly sad, just in how it made it sound like if he were an Arab, he couldn't have been a family man, etc.. But politically speaking, McCain at least addressed the lady's comment... And going further with it (saying Arabs themselves were not a problem either) would not have likely mattered much.

I don't get the Queen of Diamonds joke. Is that a wife joke? Or just something I'm clueless about...

I think it's a Manchurian Candidate reference.

absolutely

Shocking no one (except Trump?) the #AskTrump received plenty of trolling.

Trump threatens to sue Club for Growth (GOP PAC):

Lawyers for GOP frontrunner Donald Trump sent Club for Growth a letter Monday demanding that the group cease and desist its ongoing campaign critical of Trump.

The cease and desist demand targets recent TV ads, as well as media interviews promoting the commercials, that suggest Trump is "very liberal." Monday's letter singled out a Club for Growth claim that Trump supports higher taxes, which Trump's legal team says is misleading and comes from a single, 15-year-old article.

"In other words, you lied," the letter said. "Mr. Trump does not support higher taxes. This is the very definition of libel."

Here's the really interesting kicker:

The letter goes on to accuse Club for Growth of attempting a "shake-down" because Trump refused to donate $1 million to the group in exchange for its support.

"When Mr. Trump, however, presumably unlike many of the other candidates, refused to succumb to your extortionist demands, your only response was to oppose his inclusion in the August 6, 2015 Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, launch a series of misleading Attack Ads targeting Mr. Trump and, ultimately, endorse certain other candidates," the letter said.

Unfortunately, I don't have a hard time believing that actually happened. Yet another indicator of what Citizens United has done to destroy our electoral institutions, IMHO.

“Who is God to you? What are some of your thoughts on this?”

Well, I say God is the ultimate. You know, you look at this. You look at this incr–here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever, this land. I have no mortgage on it as you–I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and, you know, make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for this country. Make great deals. We have to. We have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean, God created this. And, you know, here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So, uh, nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.

Nope. There's nothing like god.

Moliere wrote:“Who is God to you? What are some of your thoughts on this?”

Well, I say God is the ultimate. You know, you look at this. You look at this incr–here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever, this land. I have no mortgage on it as you–I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and, you know, make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for this country. Make great deals. We have to. We have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean, God created this. And, you know, here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So, uh, nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.

Nope. There's nothing like god.

Sooo, Trump's God is Mammon? Meh, there's a lot of that going around...

The Art of the Non Sequitur

Moliere wrote:“Who is God to you? What are some of your thoughts on this?”

Well, I say God is the ultimate. You know, you look at this. You look at this incr–here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever, this land. I have no mortgage on it as you–I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and, you know, make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for this country. Make great deals. We have to. We have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean, God created this. And, you know, here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So, uh, nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.

Nope. There's nothing like god.

Is he trying to explain Manifest Destiny?

Canuck wrote:

Moliere wrote:“Who is God to you? What are some of your thoughts on this?”

Well, I say God is the ultimate. You know, you look at this. You look at this incr–here we are on the Pacific Ocean. How did I ever own this? I bought it fifteen years ago. I made one of the great deals they say ever, this land. I have no mortgage on it as you–I will certify and represent to you. And I was able to buy this and, you know, make a great deal. That’s what I want to do for this country. Make great deals. We have to. We have to bring it back, but God is the ultimate. I mean, God created this. And, you know, here’s the Pacific Ocean right behind us. So, uh, nobody, no thing, no there’s nothing like God.

Nope. There's nothing like god.

Is he trying to explain Manifest Destiny?

Manifest Real Estate.

I love Donald Trump. He will be extremely entertaining as emperor. Scott Pelley (60 Minutes) reminds him, "You're not running for president of China". He's not running for President of China? He doesn't drink at all. He will round up all the illegal immigrants and offer them a job building a giant border wall. We will not pay taxes and all be very rich. Even the bible mentions him: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the Trump of God." -1 TH 4:16

Tax plan

When talking about taxes in this campaign, Donald Trump has often sounded like a different kind of Republican. He says he will take on “the hedge fund guys” and their carried interest loophole. He thinks it’s “outrageous” how little tax some multimillionaires pay. But his plan calls for major tax cuts not just for the middle class but also for the richest Americans — even the dreaded hedge fund managers. And despite his campaign’s assurances that the plan is “fiscally responsible,” it would grow budget deficits by trillions of dollars over a decade.
...
Currently, the top income tax rate for regular income is 39.6 percent. Mr. Trump would cut that rate to 25 percent, the lowest level since 1931. He’d cut maximum rates on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent from 23.8 percent. He’d cut the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, and also offer a special tax rate of 15 percent to business owners — less than half what they may pay under today’s rules. He’d abolish the estate tax entirely.

Mr. Trump says he’d pay for those tax rate reductions by “reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.” But in truth, rich people already pay tax on most of their income, so there’s less revenue available from cutting rich people’s tax breaks than Mr. Trump and many voters believe.

In 2013, taxpayers earning between $500,000 and $10 million deducted or exempted an average of 12 percent of their income from tax; for those earning more than $10 million, the figure was 16 percent. If those deductions were abolished entirely (and Mr. Trump proposes only to reduce them), that would not come close to paying for a cut in the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, which is a relative reduction of 37 percent.

So basically less taxes for everyone, but mostly for the wealthy, with zero way to pay for it.

Kick that can.

Apparently Trump failed statistics in college.

On Monday, he claimed he'd seen numbers that show America's "real" unemployment rate is 42%, if not higher.

How does he arrive at such a wild figure?

Trump appears to be looking at the number of American adults not working. Period.

Out of about 251 million American adults, roughly 102 million -- or 40.6% -- aren't working.

But, of course, there are a lot of reasons people don't work. They could be disabled, in college, at home raising kids or retired.

Somebody has to build that wall. We need a good FDR public works program to put those 40% back to work.

If we hire the illegals to build the wall, we can just have them finish it from the Mexico side, right? Problem solved!

LawBeefaroni wrote:So basically less taxes for everyone, but mostly for the wealthy, with zero way to pay for it.

Kick that can.

This is a pretty common campaign tactic these days - promise broad tax relief, release a plan with large, specific tax cuts that will accrue largely to the wealthy, but promise to pay for them through vague "tax break cutbacks", even though typically the math for doing so is impossible.

However, I suspect that this may be damaging to Trump given the stark contrast with his populist campaign rhetoric.

Of course, given that Trump's competitors are largely doing the same thing in terms of their tax plans, it may be awkward and difficult for them to take advantage of this.

Defunding the government.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Anarchy only really works if you're excellent at hide and seek, or you're bigger than everyone else.

Rip wrote:Defunding the government.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

So you seriously think Trump and a Republican controlled Congress would vote themselves out of existence?

Jaymann wrote:

Rip wrote:Defunding the government.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

So you seriously think Trump and a Republican controlled Congress would vote themselves out of existence?

Would they need to? I think they would cut things they don't care about and have been stuck with because of Democrats.

Either way I am pretty sure that cutting taxes even in half won't have any effect on the POTUS or Congress getting paid during and after their terms.

Well, cutting their pay during their terms is unconstitutional.

Rip wrote:Would they need to? I think they would cut things they don't care about and have been stuck with because of Democrats.

I'm so fucking sick of this meme continuing to exist despite being debuked over and over again.

Your government budget is over 20% of your national economy. Nuke that, nuke the entire country. Period. Anyone who wants to see the government serious reigned in wants anarchy, and not because the government isn't there to keep it from happening. It's anarchy because the entire country would begin to fail economically.

Mandatory spending is ~2/3s of the budget, or approx. 13% of the national economy. 1/2 that is social security and unemployment. You know that stuff that kept leeches on society like Kraken from eating his neighbours from 2008 on? Yeah, that. Hundreds of thousands of old people from starving to death after their pensions got eaten by Enron et al? Yeah, those people.

45% of mandatory spending is healthcare. I know you want to die instead of living if god forbid you ever got sick, but people tend to put a priority on living. So you've got that. So 95% of 66% of your budget is keeping people alive and eating. You could cut it, but it's mandatory spending. So good luck with that.

That leaves Discretionary spending, which is about 1/3 of 20% of the national economy, or about 6.6%. You can play with this part. Hey look, military spending is 1/2 of this. So if you want less military spending you've got 3.3% of the national economy to play with. What's that? You don't want to cut military spending? Well, ok, but that doesn't leave much else. Things like Science, foreign affairs, environment, agriculture, education etc, those are all about 5% of 6.6% of the national economy. So each of those is about 0.33% of the national economy. Sure you can cut those, but why would you want to, and even if you did want to, what have you accomplished? Reduced government spending by something like 1.5% for each of those. Hell, government itself is only about 1.5% of government spending, so even the bureaucracy isn't bankrupting anything.

The idea that government spending is excessive is only true if you can figure out what parts you'd want to cut. And the parts that Republicans want to cut? Keep people from starving to death, eating their neighbours or piles of corpses building up in the streets. The other parts that they want to cut barely exist already.

And to return to the original point, 20% of the US economy *IS* government spending. If that went away, who would pay the military industrial complex? Who would pay outrageous healthcare bills (i.e. keep hospitals and doctors in business)? Who would subsidize farmers?

The idea that government spending is out of control is stupid, and you're stupid for thinking that reducing it is a net benefit to anyone.

So go ahead and cut healthcare. Nothing bad will come from a less healthy population. Go ahead and cut social security. Old folks don't contribute anything any more. Iceflows might be an option. Go ahead and cut the military. Even if you eliminated it completely you'd only reduce government spending by 1/6th or so.

The right are like parrots. Less government, less government, less government, with no idea what that would mean, cost, or result in.

Geezus.

Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!