Slashdot Mirror

Straight from Trump's campaign website. In this case, he didn't say the instrument of payment would necessarily be a check per se, nevertheless the "Mexican government will contribute the funds". The plan was to pressure remittances to coerce the Mexican government into contributing the funds. There would be no need to put pressure on remittances if all along it was going to be a natural outcome of an improved trade deal.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...

On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31
CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include
money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to
includewire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that
no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien
first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United
States.
On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24
billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United
States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de
facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety
net provided by the state in Mexico.
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds
needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will
not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

All of this is because Trump's ego doesn't let him admit he is anywhere near in the wrong.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...

"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-
10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year."

Trump cannot admit that he cannot get Mexico to pay for it.
Trump cannot admit that in reality, we, Americans, will be paying for it.

Trump literally cannot accept the reality that he himself has created.

If you still support Trump in this matter, you are also the problem.
If you still support Trump in this matter, then you are giving a screaming 3 year old exactly what he wants. What do you think will happen when that 3 year old wants something else?

He literally spelled it out on his website the HOW. I cannot believe that so many fucking people are going 1984 on this point. One of those points mentioned in that document, FROM HIS FUCKING WEBSITE, is them expecting Mexico to cut a fucking check for the wall, full stop.

I actually had to check the root URL because I thought the poll site was a satirical site making fun of Trump.

I honestly don't understand how you can create an organization so incompetent that something like that could be created and published.

...If they had Hilary would probably be president

Trump won because there are a lot of foolish Americans who bought up the line of shit Trump was selling. Bring back jobs (reanimate the corpse of the late Steve Jobs)! Build the wall (and pay for it by selling grappling hooks to Mexicans)! Make healthcare affordable (by kicking off the sick people, duh)! Lock up Hillary (???)! Abolish the EPA (How bad can that possibly be?)! MAGA (Buy a stupid red hat)!

Hillary never really managed to coalesce her voter base around anything quite as rousing. The best thing she had going for her was that she wasn't Trump. She needed a miracle, not some protesters staying home.

That wasn't the point. The OP said nothing was being done and that Trump wasn't keeping his promises.
That was a list of things being done and promises kept.
Do you and I have disagreements with Trump? Yes. Probably. (I can't speak for you) But don't kid yourself. Things are getting done.

But he hasn't kept the majority of his promises. Here is Trump's "Contract with the American Voter", things Trump promised to do in his first 100 days in office. Let's go through each of the promises and see if they were fulfilled:
(corruption/influence)
FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Nope
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health). Nope, tried but already removed
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. Yes
FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.Partial, for executive officials only
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. Yes
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. Nope
(protect american workers)
FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205. Nope
SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Yes
THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator. Nope, not even close
FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately. Yes
FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. He has done some things toward this goal so I will give him credit for this
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.Yes
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.Yes, to a degree. His proposed budget does reduce or eliminate some of these payments but that budget certainly isn't (yet) law and it's doubtful that the $1.6 B will "fix" America's water and environmental infrastructure.

(security/rule of law)
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. Partial credit, he has canceled several Obama executive orders but certainly hasn't shown any to be unconstitutional. After all the bitching he did about Obama's use of executive orders Trump sure likes to use them himself
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Yes
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. Nope
FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back. Partial, he has at least tried
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.” Nope, the way he proposed it was unconstitutional

(from the back, legislation he promised to get introduced)
Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act

I'll give you Comey, but Gingrich is certainly part of "Trump's team". He worked as a consultant for Trump's campaign, was considered as a VP candidate for Trump and just had his (3rd) wife appointed to an ambassadorship by Trump. Since she has no diplomatic experience, one would assume it is political compensation to Newt. If that's not on Trump's team I don't know what is.

It makes a lot of sense for them to align, after all they both created a Contract with America (Newt's) (Donald's) on which they both failed to deliver.

Its not illegal, but frankly its immoral to do government business on a private account. The ONLY fucking purpose of that is to hide shit from review.

Depends on the content of the email. "Honey, I'm going to be late to dinner because I'm in this meeting for the XYZ bill." Oh no, there's now details of a government meeting in a private email!

Also, Pence is complying with the records-keeping laws of Indiana by having his AOL account archived. That's the only reason you even know about this story...because he was already doing the right thing. I'm wondering if maybe your outrage over Pence's email is not because you're a real stickler for email practices but because you're opposed to him politically, so anything you can maybe infer isn't perfect turns out to be proof of absolute depravity. Maybe?

That said, I think governments at all levels should review their email records-keeping practices. Government doesn't move that fast, and technology has changed the way we communicate rapidly over the last two decades. I doubt any government agency outside of classified systems has policies in place that Slashdotters would agree are "best practices." And it gets trickier when we start bringing cell phones, texting, and twitter accounts into the mix. If a government agency deletes a tweet (even for a typo), does that count as "destroying government records?" Are they government records, or do they belong to twitter? Interesting, interesting.

When the administration gets into the office on the promise of "draining the swamp" it is not crazy to point out the fact that the water has only gotten deeper under his watch.

"Draining the swamp" was from a specific policy speech about government lobbying with five specific actions he pledged to take. The 2 involving the Executive Branch he's already fulfilled, and the other 3 require congress, which can't get to the legislative agenda until cabinet/executive/judicial appointments are finished and the Dems are dragging their feet, merely delaying the inevitable. If he does those things, he will have "drained the swamp." You're changing the definition to whatever you want (something about government record keeping...retroactive for Indiana governors? I guess?) so you can claim whatever that is he's not doing it. When the fact is no matter what Trump does ("OH MY GOD he didn't appoint a left-handed lesbian eskimo transmidget to the Supreme Court! So much for 'draining the swamp', huh Trumpkins?!?!") you're never going to give him credit for "draining the swamp" because you've simply defined it as "the opposite of whatever Trump's doing."

Anyway, stay mad. It's fun.

But I actually do remember "drain the swamp." It's five specific items from this policy speech about reforming government lobbying, and he's put the policies that effect the executive branch into place already. Getting Congress to impose these restrictions on themselves is another matter and we can't get into legislative initiatives until the cabinet is confirmed, but there's zero sign of flip-flopping on draining the swamp.

The problem is the left and the media pretend that "draining the swamp" means...whatever the hell they want. It seems like they've tried to redefine it as something to do with his cabinet appointments. "Oh my god, Trump didn't appoint enough pink haired translesbian demieskimos to his cabinet, so much for draining the swamp!!!!" Who the hell cares?

Trump been checking his campaign promises off at an amazing rate. Actual Trump voters (not neocon GOP establishment hacks like John McCain and Lindsay Graham the media might trot out on TV) are very happy. Now if it turns out his policies don't work and the working class is still poor and we've got race riots in 2020, then I can see him losing. But it won't be for lack of trying.

First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

In what way has Trump "completely flipped" on this policy?

Look at a link to a retarded comment I made so long ago the internet forgot about it /https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785b

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-5 32/64-bit is all you need. It generates a new hosts file nightly from the shit splatter when I sodomize a cat

You are all Cows. Cows say MOO. MOO MOO.

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively all while redirecting you to pictures of my gaping ass hole.

Thank you GNAA and Happy Wednesday from the Golden Girls

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

"Draining the swamp" is a list of five specific policy initiatives about changing the way lobbying works in washington. It has nothing to do with his cabinet appointments. And in your quote he's talking about the use of the phrase "drain the swamp," not about the policies themselves. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

If Trump implements those 5 policies, he will have "drained the swamp." That is all. There's no reason to think he won't implement these policies, because they're pretty simple, and he's not beholden to anyone who benefits from the status quo with regards to lobbying. It's unlikely he'll get Congress to pass laws limiting their ability to become lobbyists in the future, but that could actually work in his favor. He'll have implemented the policies in the executive branch, and then he can scream invective at the legislature for not cleaning up their act in this regard whenever he gets in a fight with them.

But I agree with Trump that use of the phrase was a bad idea, because political opponents who are either lying or uninformed just pretend it means whatever they want, and then swing it around as a rhetorical weapon because whatever it is Trump's doing will never be their made-up definition of "draining the swamp." "OH MY GOD TRUMP DIDN'T APPOINT ANY LESBIAN ESKIMO TRANSMIDGETS TO HIS CABINET HE'S NOT DRAINING THE SWAMP!!!!"

(paraphrased) trump had detailed policy propels, and hllary didn't

i did read them, and the conclusion is that youre completely detached from reality and have no f'ing clue what youre speaking of.

trump on immigration:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

Repetitive, vague, and sometimes openly bigoted statements and goals lacking any actual policy content of how to actually accomplish it , and a bunch of blatant BS about Obama/Clinton.

Hillary on immigration:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com...

Goals....that actually include how she would have attempted to achieve those goals.

It's one thing to say "I'm going to be an astronaut, I want to be an astronaut, I will be an astronaut."
It's completely another to say "I'm going to be an astronaut, and to do that I'm going to go to attend MIT, work for NASA, and submit a proposal for a Mars habitat, which I then volunteer for."

and you somehow managed to confuse which one was concrete proposal, and which was bluster.
and you also managed to repeat some of the same BS trump did, and discount his well documented racist behavior.

No, "drain the swamp" refers to a particular set of 5 or 6 policies from this speech.

First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

There is another major announcement I am going to make today as part of our pledge to drain the swamp in Washington. If I am elected President, I will push for a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

"Draining the swamp" has nothing to do with his cabinet or advisers. However, leftists and the lefty media have picked up the term as demoralization propaganda by either actually not knowing what it means and making up their own definition (which of course Trump will never fit) or by knowing what it means and lying about it. That's the thing when dealing with a lefty. You always have to figure out if they're one of the stupid ones who don't know what they're talking about or if they're one of the evil ones who knows what they're talking about, and are lying to brainwash the stupid ones.

> now he's doing a god damn victory tour, who does that?

Hitler. Literally. The last time someone held post-election political rallies was 1930 germany.

Fortunately, Trump's rallies seem be kind of anemic. Like the one in Fayetteville, NC Or the one in Iowa where he got less than 5,000 people and had to use the smaller Hy-vee convention hall instead of the adjoining wells-fargo arena.

He already is. He's talking about increasing long term capital gains taxes, which taxes investments like bitcoin.

Don't worry, he will repeal the estate tax so that billionaires can pass on all their money to their children (instead of just most of it) so that the new generation of bosses are the same as the old generation of bosses. Meanwhile, the people who voted for him because they are getting screwed economically will still get screwed. What did you think would happen when you elected a billionaire?

Also, where do you get that he is planning on raising capital gains taxes? His site says:

The Trump Plan will retain the existing capital gains rate structure (maximum rate of 20 percent) with tax brackets shown above.

So his plan is to lower income taxes on the ultra-rich and increase spending. I hope all the Tea Party representatives that shut the government down during the Obama administration will stop his attempt to run up the debt but I doubt that will happen.

No, draining the swamp is about changing the way lobbying works. Banning people from being lobbyists after working in the government, banning them from ever lobbying for foreign governments, a proposed constitutional amendment for term limits in congress, etc. It has nothing to do with replacing bad people with good people but with changing the system that enables systemic corruption. These are not things he can do until after inauguration, though, so whether or not the swamp will be drained is unknown, but cabinet appointments have nothing to do with it.

The speech: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

And the five points:

First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

At donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan it says

"Reduce taxes across-the-board, especially for working and middle-income Americans who will receive a massive tax reduction."

Now, you can assert that he will underhandedly strive to do something other than what his platform calls for. But you can't assert that his platform calls for "lowering taxes on the wealthiest people."

Attention:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...

Saying you seem lacking knowledge of Trump does not make me a "bigot" in any sense of the word

No, but accusing him of "conspir[ing] with foreign governments to defraud the American public" is, given what we actually know.

but saying you did not vote for Hillary because you support gay marriage

I did not vote for Hillary because it is clear that whatever she promises or says in her campaign bears no known relationship to what she actually intends to do. We know that both from her past behavior and from her leaked E-mails. In fact, I'm not even sure that she intends to do anything because she doesn't have any kind of coherent agenda or vision; all she does is have carefully crafted messages to special interest groups.

You see, I have also lived as an immigrant, and I know delusional xenophobia when I see it.

Unless you have actually gone through and changed your citizenship, you haven't lived "as an immigrant", you have merely worked as a temporary guest worker in a foreign country. Furthermore, limits on immigration (whether illegal or legal) are not xenophobic; all other advanced nations have them. Countries generally require valuable skills, cultural compatibility, and a blemish-free record for immigration. Trump's position on immigration is in no way xenophobic or unusual; Hillary's positions don't amount to much of a policy, just a set of carefully crafted messages attempting to maximize support from a particular demographic.

If you knew Japanese, I might be able to continue this discussion in a different language. . . but that seems statistically improbable. . .

Well, I suppose if Japanese is your native language, it is no wonder that you have such queer notions about identity and racism; Japan is one of the most xenophobic and racist countries I have ever spent time in.

Except, this time, I am part of the "demographic in power," and I fully intend to use that position of privilege to fight this dark shadow that has taken hold of my homeland

Which demographic would that be? Democrats just lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, and with that, the supreme court, so don't hold your breath.

At this point, I am not sure you can understand it, but my attacks on Trump are in defense of people like yourself. [...] Again, with the personal attacks. . . of someone you know so little about.

You accuse people of racism, xenophobia, and fraud for the flimsiest of reasons and express your disapproval and condemnation. Well, I'm accusing you of being a progressive and a Democrat; you certainly sound like one. And while you obviously don't understand why that offends people, I think it's important to make it crystal clear to you that it does. Perhaps that will induce people like you to reflect a bit on what you're saying and advocating, because obviously reason isn't getting through to you.

and he called for a halt to immigration of Muslims from certain nations until we can better determine their reason for wanting to come to this country.

(Ignoring for now if even that there would be problems even with that..)

Nope.

From https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...
(and whois shows that The Trump Organization registered it).

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com... says the same thing

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

No "certain nations". Total and complete shutdown.. BASED ON RELIGION. That's by definition prejudiced.

BTW, I am probably far far far more right wing than you on many issues.. This and many other of his ideas/statements, are just evil.

Here is the text from his website. You may notice that it is slightly more detailed than his 15 second debate answer. The first link is to a 4 page PDF. I'm not going to convert the links for his sources, but they are there.

DONALD TRUMP'S VISION

To view Mr. Trump's position, visit https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

Work with Congress to create a patient-centered health care system that promotes choice, quality, and affordability.

Work with states to establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage.

Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market.

Maximize flexibility for states via block grants so that local leaders can design innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens.

KEY ISSUES

President Obama said his health plan would cut the cost of family premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Instead, premiums have gone up by almost $5,000 since Obamacare passed. [Kaiser Family Foundation]

Nearly two-thirds of Obamacare Exchange plans lost over $2.2 billion just in 2014. [Mercatus Center, April 22, 2016]

Health insurance companies are fleeing the Obamacare Exchanges. Five states, one-third of all counties, and 19% of Americans eligible for Obamacare will have only one Exchange insurer this year. [New York Times, Aug. 19, 2016], [Kaiser Family Foundation, Aug. 28, 2016], [McKinsey on Healthcare, Aug. 18, 2016]

Premiums have skyrocketed across the nation, with a national average of almost 25%, with some states experiencing rate increases up to 70%. In Iowa, one plan got a 43% increase approved. In Florida, the individual market will see an average rate increase of 19%. In Pennsylvania, at least three plans requested rate increases over 40%. And the average rate requested in Minnesota is 54%. [ACA Signups], [Health Insurance], [Miami Herald], [Health Insurance]

More than half the Exchange plans have deductibles of $3,000 or more. [The New York Times, Nov. 14, 2015]

Deductibles are going up in 2017, some as high as $7,000 per person on the âoecheapestâ Obamacare plans. [Investors Business Daily, May 13, 2016]

People are going without needed medical care because they canâ(TM)t afford these amounts. [The Boston Globe, Nov. 16, 2015]

Most of the people getting covered under Obamacare are getting it through the government run Medicaid program. [Heritage Foundation]

Almost 12 million more Americans were enrolled in Medicaid or the Childrenâ(TM)s Health Insurance Plan since October 2013. [Obamacarefacts.com]

By 2026 one-fourth of our population will be on Medicaid or the Childrenâ(TM)s Health Insurance Program. [Congressional Budget Office, March 2016]

Numerous studies show that Medicaid enrollees canâ(TM)t find doctors. [Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Dec. 2014]

Medicaid beneficiaries have worse health compared to everyone else. Add to that higher death rates, misuse of the emergency room and higher overall costs. [âoeHow to Fix Medicaid,â National Affairs, 2014]

Obamacare has reduced pay for workers in small businesses and reduced employment

Here is the text from his website. You may notice that it is slightly more detailed than his 15 second debate answer. The first link is to a 4 page PDF. I'm not going to convert the links for his sources, but they are there.

DONALD TRUMP'S VISION

To view Mr. Trump's position, visit https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

Work with Congress to create a patient-centered health care system that promotes choice, quality, and affordability.

Work with states to establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage.

Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market.

Maximize flexibility for states via block grants so that local leaders can design innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens.

KEY ISSUES

President Obama said his health plan would cut the cost of family premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Instead, premiums have gone up by almost $5,000 since Obamacare passed. [Kaiser Family Foundation]

Nearly two-thirds of Obamacare Exchange plans lost over $2.2 billion just in 2014. [Mercatus Center, April 22, 2016]

Health insurance companies are fleeing the Obamacare Exchanges. Five states, one-third of all counties, and 19% of Americans eligible for Obamacare will have only one Exchange insurer this year. [New York Times, Aug. 19, 2016], [Kaiser Family Foundation, Aug. 28, 2016], [McKinsey on Healthcare, Aug. 18, 2016]

Premiums have skyrocketed across the nation, with a national average of almost 25%, with some states experiencing rate increases up to 70%. In Iowa, one plan got a 43% increase approved. In Florida, the individual market will see an average rate increase of 19%. In Pennsylvania, at least three plans requested rate increases over 40%. And the average rate requested in Minnesota is 54%. [ACA Signups], [Health Insurance], [Miami Herald], [Health Insurance]

More than half the Exchange plans have deductibles of $3,000 or more. [The New York Times, Nov. 14, 2015]

Deductibles are going up in 2017, some as high as $7,000 per person on the âoecheapestâ Obamacare plans. [Investors Business Daily, May 13, 2016]

People are going without needed medical care because they canâ(TM)t afford these amounts. [The Boston Globe, Nov. 16, 2015]

Most of the people getting covered under Obamacare are getting it through the government run Medicaid program. [Heritage Foundation]

Almost 12 million more Americans were enrolled in Medicaid or the Childrenâ(TM)s Health Insurance Plan since October 2013. [Obamacarefacts.com]

By 2026 one-fourth of our population will be on Medicaid or the Childrenâ(TM)s Health Insurance Program. [Congressional Budget Office, March 2016]

Numerous studies show that Medicaid enrollees canâ(TM)t find doctors. [Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Dec. 2014]

Medicaid beneficiaries have worse health compared to everyone else. Add to that higher death rates, misuse of the emergency room and higher overall costs. [âoeHow to Fix Medicaid,â National Affairs, 2014]

Obamacare has reduced pay for workers in small businesses and reduced employment

Trump's clarification of that question. Why you gotta lie and make it seem like he was talking about H1-Bs? This is why Trump is winning. All his opponents can do is be OUTRAGED but can't argue the issues without lying about his positions. People notice and then they hate you and support Trump. Making your own monsters, kid.

"Megyn Kelly asked about highly-skilled immigration. The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse and ending outrageous practices such as those that occurred at Disney in Florida when Americans were forced to train their foreign replacements. I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions."

Which Trump tax plan are you reading? The one on his website is mostly about cutting the rates on low and middle incomes (including small businesses). It does remove the 35% and 39.6% brackets, and the AMT, but it also caps deductions WAY lower than the current limits, which means that a lot of very rich people will suddenly be paying taxes pretty close to their actual tax rates.

The thing it does most to "favor the rich" is leave the capital gains rates unchanged from today. This should surprise no one that has watched his 1991 testimony to Congress where he made his feelings very clear on using the contrast of a lower capital gains rate to incentivize investment.

Also, the story of this election was indeed going to be two lizards. Hillary vs. JEB. That had been the plan since 2008, and you can find stories in the press pushing it since at least 2012. But we are sick of lizards, so the people picked two candidates that weren't more of the same, Trump vs. Sanders. The Democrat party managed to suppress the voters and ensure victory for their lizard. But the Republican voters were sick enough of their party to prevent them from replacing the people's choice with the party lizard.

Note that the Republicans are still trying to get their lizard in. The lockerroom tape was an attack coordinated from three sides. Stories about reactions to the tape from Republican officials, including Paul Ryan and others, were out on the internet before the stories about the tape itself, and they included calls for Trump to step down.

Trump also opposes the TPP. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

Well that settles it then. Trump's own physician for the past 39 years stated, "Mr. Trump has had a recent complete medical examination that showed only positive results", and that, "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". I'm sure this AAPS survey is completely unrelated and has no part in any campaign plans.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/i...

That thing reads like something Trump would have written himself. Try reading it while doing an impression of him - it's "astonishingly excellent". "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary".

I'm no fan of Clinton either, but I don't think she'll have any problem surviving another 4 years. Then again, I was hoping to vote for Bernie, so my bar is a tad low in that regard.

If he's saying "energy revolution" he invites you to project "trump is making america use green technologies". But he is proposing exactly the opposite: http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-...

Quoting his press release https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... , he wants to:

Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
[...]
Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

And for the coal workers: At one of his rallies in west virginia he has said this:

Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they're going to start to work again, believe me. You're going to be proud again to be miners.

I don't know whether it qualifies as "projection" if you are just quoting his words as he says so much, but show me the quote where he said the thing about the new energy system.

Err why am I trolling? This is what he said http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-...

Quoting his press release https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
[...]
Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

Funny, but when I read about Trump's plan, that was exactly what he proposed. He wanted to ban all people coming from Syria. But I guess when you hate someone, you just need to find reasons for your hate, and not actually look at things for yourself.

Does that include not looking at Trump's own website?? How exactly does "total & complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" equate "all people coming from Syria"?
BTW, Syria has millions of Christians how does banning them protect America from Muslim hate?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

"- DECEMBER 07, 2015 -

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful.

Why is it awful? You may or may not agree, that it would help, but what is "awful" about it? It is not "simply" a religion — no other religion that I know of specifies a particular form of government as the only one acceptable. Most are mum on it, while Christianity explicitly leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar". Donald Trump's page, to which you linked yourself, has links to results of a poll of Muslims already in the US showing, they would like to be governed by Sharia rather than the Constitution. Arguably, a President — who's solemn responsibility is upholding the document — would be derelict of his main duty, if he allowed even more people with such opinions to enter the country and become citizens. This is not much different than blocking Communists and Nazis from immigrating...

And before you say "First Amendment" — stop. Insults against Islam are already deadly dangerous — and even the "moderate" Muslims would like it to be illegal. When Iran called for murder of Salman Rushdee, Margaret Thatcher gave the man state's protection. Today we are more likely to see the victim blamed for his own "intolerance". For example, instead of the state's protection, the would-be Koran-burner was asked to pay for additional police presence out of his own pocket in order to exercise his First Amendment rights. Trump is more likely to reverse this unfortunate trend, and that is a good thing...

reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims

It is increasingly hard to make a distinction. But the ban Trump is proposing is not permanent — rather it is "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That is, until reliable methods of separating "Islamists from Muslims" (your choice of terms, not mine) can be developed.

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea

Why is it "ridiculous"? When Israel implemented their wall — which critics were calling ridiculous and evil too — the number of terrorism-related deaths inside Israel plummeted.

Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income.

As Trump points out, most of the remittances originate from illegal immigrants. Now, such illegality might not warrant death penalty or even incarceration, but any and all financial penalties are perfectly justified. What of the legal immigrants? Well, they too can easily avoid this "tax" you disapprove of by holding on to their monies — it will achieve Trump's goal anyway. Because the goal is not to rob these folks, but to compel Mexico to (help) pay for the wall construction.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists

Economics are a scandalously unscientific discipline. Frustrated Harry Truman once demanded to see a "one-handed economist" — so exasperated he became of the endless "one the one hand/on the other hand" coming from his economic advisers.

Now I am for free trade — not because it is effec

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Does anyone see Congress approving anything Trump asks for?

Yes, for example, from his platform, a Republican congress would approve repealing Obamacare (they've already done it what, a dozen times already?). They would likely increase spending for mental healthcare as a way to handle mass-shootings (again, Republicans have already tried to do that in the last year).

Will they vote for the wall? Maybe, if Trump can actually get Mexico to pay for it. If Trump gets his way, he'll have a bunch of copycats, and then congress will be filled with hucksters. Wait.....

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

Let's see how I do...

Murder: In the US, there is the 2nd amendment right, enshrined in the Constitution, which gives everyone the right to own a gun (or, indeed, as many guns as they can buy). It's fair, everyone can have guns, even people who mow down defenseless children by the dozen. It's what the NRA wants.

Mobs: Admittedly, that is a problem, mobs generally don't behave rationally. Though most protests start out aimed at government groups or companies that are damaging their rights, rather than singling out and murdering individuals for perceived slights against a book they've read.

Torture: This, too, is a toughie. It was (is?) a program by the Bush administration and CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. While morally and legally wrong, they at least tried to limit it to people who may have performed real world actions, rather than supernatural powers. If the witch floats, she's a witch, and if the witch drowns, she wasn't a witch?

Unsafe water: According to the Republican leaders, the EPA is in the way of business, so they've spent long years bleeding the EPA of ability to enforce the law, issue warnings and hold people accountable. That is a problem.

Corruption: Yep, the financial system is broken. Yep, the police are rarely held responsible for murdering people, destroying evidence, lying, et cetera.

Candidates: Our choices are horrible. We have a crazy, erratic liar who says whatever thought pops into his head and a consistent liar who is desperate to say whatever she thinks people want to hear as our only choices. But, at least neither of them have been implicated in the mass murder of thousands of their own constituents.

All in all, shitty as both places can be, the reality is still that a much better, safer life is still possible in the USA. Maybe not for long, but at least for your lifetime, maybe.

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Wow, really, every time?

Oh wait, he's going to define "addressed" as "Hey, we told you we can't help you" isn't he?

Besides, the law and order candidate? Him? Yeah, his idea of law and order ended up with false convictions for multiple people. Yay? And his life? Oh my, it's so full of completely honest endeavors and nobody is suing him right now for his disreputable business at all.

(And that's not even getting into the perils of giving veterans such special treatment, why shouldn't ALL Americans have a hotline to the White House? Huh?)

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

Promises, promises.

Trump's changes are the kind of bombastic rhetoric that won't even work, yet you continually shill them out as concrete and definite.

How much is he paying you, or are you just shoveling the shit for free?

Clinton: It's 'Heartbreaking' When IT Workers Must Train H-1B Replacements

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

Donald Trump's position on tax reform eliminates much of the paperwork. If you're single and earn less than $25,000 or jointly earn less than $50,000 you pay no tax. Send in a single-page form and you're done.

So they pretty much still have to file, basically ("send in a single-page form").

Plus you neglect to mention that he's getting rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit - that'll save the government a bunch of money as well, at the expense of the poorest of the poor.

All this crap just because tax preparation companies throw lobbying money to keep the current system. Most Americans would not need to actually file for taxes, the IRS already has all the data it needs, but noooo we have to keep an obsolete industry going no matter the cost...

Donald Trump's position on tax reform eliminates much of the paperwork. If you're single and earn less than $25,000 or jointly earn less than $50,000 you pay no tax. Send in a single-page form and you're done.

There's not a lot of federal income to be had from low wage earners, so it makes perfect sense to eliminate the extra work on both sides. Also, poor people don't have to spend money on tax filing services (H&R Block, et al).

Poor people get to keep more of their money, the IRS has a lot less work to do (estimated 75 million households), and the federal government gets just as much revenue.

Hillary Clinton doesn't have a unified plan to reform tax reporting (posted on her website).

If you think this issue is important, elect Hillary and nothing will change.

For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.

Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.

Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.

As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:

Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.

Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.

If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.

If you're worried that 11 million new job seekers suddenly on the market might make it hard for you to get by, then vote for Trump.

(*) I only used the immigration thing because everyone knows Donald's plan. Does anyone know what Hillary's position on tax reform is?

There's a really obvious reason why Trump is so popular.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off, should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, and you really can't trust the MSM any more, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And he wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible.

There's a really obvious reason why he's so popular, so I don't think "incredible" is the right word to use.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

Regarding the 3 sidebar pics, what's wrong with the Trump pics? Trump tends to look more serious in the press, and Clinton tends to smile more.

Also, Trump looks a bit goofy when he smiles, enough that I'm surprised the main banner on his site has him smiling (it might just be because he almost comes across as friendly, which my mind cannot accept).

For the little primary results pic, it does seem like an odd choice to choose a pic of him in the middle of saying something while the other candidates have professional headshots. Though to be fair, his main web page contains a supporting video whose cover pic shows him in his often-portrayed shouting expression - obviously he doesn't have a problem with people seeing him that way.

Why do you want to vote for him?

Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.

In an attempt to learn about a non-hot-potato issue, I checked out Trump's position on tax reform.

Basically, it says any individual earning under $25,000 pays no tax, couples under $50,000 pay no tax, and it gets rid of the marriage penalty and the estate tax. It's also revenue neutral(*).

That sounds pretty good to me: this would help out a lot of poor and underprivileged, and it would eliminate the huge chunk of bureaucratic effort low earners have to do each year. The amount of revenue from a poor person is negligible, so it makes sense not to expend the effort (on both sides) trying to collect it.

I couldn't find anything in Clinton's issues specifically about tax reform (let me know if I missed it), but her "economy" issue mentions a couple of tax 'gimmes such as this one:

Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.

Her position is nebulous ("Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families") and makes you feel like she's on your side without anything concrete. She's adding yet another rule to an overly-complicated tax code, and it only helps families with college-bound students.

All her positions are like that: feel-good appeals to emotional problems, and a vague sense that she'll do something about it.

Donald Trump has 7 positions listed, each of which are high priority problems that should be fixed such as the current backlog of Veterans benefits. Clinton has a looooong list of issues, such as campus sexual assault. I'm not entirely certain that campus sexual assault rises to the same level as tax reform or Veteran's benefits, but I'm pretty certain it should not be dealt with at the federal level. It's there for emotional impact.

Trump notes 7 problems and has a plan to fix them.

Clinton lists all the problems she can find, and asks "won't someone think of the $whatever-gets-me-the-vote"?

(*) Whether you believe that it is actually revenue neutral makes no difference. You can always *make* it revenue neutral by adjusting the numbers as needed, and the government thinks nothing of going into debt by twice its revenue anyway, so they could make up the shortfall that way.

(**) I had to correct myself from typing "Clinton has issues".

You can't be this wildly out of balance in a global market and expect to function well. This is a fundamental aspect of free market capitalism. Actually, if the U.S. lowered the rate to even something like 17% I'm sure they'd generate more revenue, instead of less. A company the size of Google likely spends a great deal of money on clever accounting to avoid taxes. They wouldn't need to do it if there was little or no benefit.

Not just Google, but also Donald Trump. I think Trump addressed this issue in his tax plan press conference? Check out the video below (which is a link to the direct moment he mentions this issue):

link: https://youtu.be/Lom9mPITxOo?t=4m19s
title:" Full Press Conference: Donald Trump Unveils His Tax Plan (9-28-15) "
publisher: Right Side Broadcasting
date posted: September 28, 2015
view count: 120, 657 views (very few)

in which Trump describes his plan for business taxes:

"A one time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at significantly discounted 10%.. So it comes back discounted at 10% tax rates, and ends the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Now, it's called "corporate inversion"; it a yuge subject. I've been watching politicians now for years -- all talk no action -- politicians. I've been watching them for years talking about bringing this money back . The number is probably 2.5 trillion dollars. Everybody agrees it should come back -- Republicans, Democrats, everybody. They can't make a deal. They don't know how to go about making a deal.. The reason companies aren't bringing it back is: the tax is onerous; it doesn't make sense to bring it back. And in fact, many companies are leaving the united states; they're leaving our shores -- to go and collect their money. They're going --- actually moving --out of the United States for two reasons: the taxes are too high, and because they have tremendous amounts of money that they can''t bring back into this country, when everybody wants them to bring it back in. We will have that money brought back in. [from https://youtu.be/Lom9mPITxOo?t=4m19s]

His tax plan can be found at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform, which states the following:

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1. Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
3. Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s (thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.

This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. Right now,

while also raising tax rates for rich people by taking out loopholes, funny you forgot that part

Rich people are even more mobile than companies, if a country plans to raise taxes they simply move off. Take greece for example, all the rich people immediately left the money when they found out the state was in desperate need for money.

Trump only wants to lower corporate taxes

From his official website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... he wants:

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver.

So instead of 30% the companies only have to pay 10%. That's a legalized evasion of 20%.

And consider that you are reading the promises here, not the actually passed bill, which will have to go through the hands of the republican senators and congress members regardless whether trump is president or not.

Hillary is far more in bed with corporate interests than Trump could ever dream of.

Trump doesn't really recognize climate change as a problem, and he even wants to re-negotiate the paris climate deal, probably allowing the USA to produce more CO2. I do not like Hillary, she is terribly anti-democratic, but I do like that she at least does recognize the problem (maybe she even would support measures to fight climate change).

Vote for whom?

"America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best." - Trump