The more educated people are the more likely it is that they do not support Trump. And that does relate positively to income.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Breaking: Trump Tax Records Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
tytlyf
Not Religious
Not all billionaires are greedy and corrupt. Some donate billions to charities to help the world. The billionaires and corporations that support the republican party have greed in mind. For instance, George Soros has donated over $7 billion. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs also ring a bell. Some do good with their money, some step on people to get more.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Just pointing out that humanitarians don't vote republican.
True, but it didn't work out that way in 2008 or 2012.
In those years, education level was strongly positively correlated with voting for Obama, while income level was somewhat positively correlated with voting for McCain or Romney, respectively. People with six figure incomes tended somewhat towards McCain or Romney, especially if they were married, while people with graduate degrees went more for Obama.
In 2016, both education AND income/wealth are positively correlated with the Democratic ticket.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
That's your argument? That we can't criticise Trump because if the situation were somehow different, if we were in a position similar to Trump's and if we were a member of the social group that disproportionately causes most of America's financial woes then we would probably think differently?
It's all rather airy-fairy to say 'well, if I were in his shoes...' because the fact is we're not in his shoes (well, I'm not. I don't know about you; I'm just assuming that you are). If you're going to refrain from criticising someone because if you were in their position you'd probably do the same thing then you might as well seal yourself in a bubble and stop having opinions on, well, anything!
Our lives are adversely affected because the 1% are working to ensure wealth continues flowing into their hands so they can concentrate it in even greater amounts. That money could go a long way to solving a lot of problems if only someone had the courage to take it back from them. The poorest among us are being adversely affected because selfish rich people refuse to give back to the society that helped create or add to their wealth. The poorest are being disproportionately blamed for problems they had little to no power in creating or influencing - blame that is encouraged by the real source of the problems: the 1%.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Except that last bit isn't the whole truth. Hillary threatened to obliterate Iran conditionally on them getting Nuclear weapons. Trump has made similar statements. And what wars is she in favor of starting? She voted for Iraq (Trump was also in favor of it despite what he claims this month.) she implemented Obama's policy in Syria (which I doubt anyone could have negotiated well knowing what we knew at the time). So I am trying to figure out where you draw these conclusions from.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's largely because Trump has been saying way too many off-the-wall things that should bother any thinking person who has morals.
I hadn't heard that justification yet.
This would mean that she's made even more obliteration threats than I'd known.
The one I'm aware of was with respect to an attack upon Israel.
She wouldn't just defend Israel....she wipe out all Iranians.....so she said.
She's declared Iranians the enemy in such a way that Iranian ex-pats I know heard hatred of them personally.
Combine this with continual threats to eliminate the country, & you have a diplomatic nightmare for Obama,
who correctly wants to negotiate away there nuke capability. Instead of helping, she is fueling their well justified
fear of Americastan.
Let's not forget that we replaced a democratically elected leader there in the 1953 coup.
And we supplied
Iraq with WMDs (chem & bio) in the war we supported against Iran. A million Iranians died at the hands of our proxy.
She demonstrates that Iran needs nuclear weapons because we're prepared to use biological, chemical
& even nuclear weapons against our enemies, their illegality be damned. And Trump doesn't help matters
either, since Iran also sees that we unconditionally support Israel, who has threatened preemptive war upon Iran.
I find it "deplorable" that Hillary supporters largely ignore this (about both candidates).
There are differences. (I won't say "false equivalency".)
Trump's intermittent support was wavering, & often of the "I guess so" variety.
Hillary was a strong force for war, having advocated & voted for starting it, & repeatedly to continue both wars.
Evidence indicates that she is objectively a worse risk for more war.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Okay, I mis-remembered. The point is she is not declaring war on Iran. She is making the same threat virtually every politician in Washington has made thanks to the power of the Israeli lobby. It is a strong position but I wouldn't take it literally.
I don't ignore it. I just don't see it as any different than the rest of DC. Our proxy was long before Clinton was on the scene. So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You keep saying that, but what evidence are you talking about? Most of Washington was for the war. Trumps 'I guess so', is a statement from someone with no skin in the game. He could afford to be ambivilant as he didn't have any responsibility.
Does her having company in making violent threats justify doing so?
No, it doesn't.
So this remains a strong reason I'll vote against her.
The tragedy is that I am left with one other hateful possibility to win the election.
I see differences.
Trump is less wedded to the status quo.
Gary Johnson is least wedded.
Too bad he cannot win.
But if it turns out that Hillary has a certain lock Michiganistan's winner-takes-all electoral college,
then I'll have the great joy of voting for Johnson.
Must I really provide evidence for Hillary's voting record?
I cannot believe this is in dispute.
Doesn't make it right.
I refuse to accept it.
I'll play the odds, & vote for one who wavers on war instead of one who clearly favors military foreign adventurism.
I never said you can't criticize him. I said the argument of tax deductions is weak because everyone does it. The amount is arbitrary.
You're harping to the same settlement as far as your values on poor, rich and the economy. No one is required to give their money to others. It's great if they do especially for noble causes, but that's the great thing about freedom and why each individual indiscriminately has it.
You mean the emails that her critics believe contain confidential national security information? Are those the emails you want made public?
First question response - not just those (any and all of them)
Second question response - yes
Wirey
Fartist
For the sake of clarity:
Trump doesn't pay taxes. He gets away with this because he has outright purchased the politicians who oversee the process (i.e. Billary) and gets them to make sure the law stays on his side while the average Joe Nobody keeps paying for the roads his business vehicles rely on. I can't stand the idea of him winning, but I have to admit, he was right when he said that made him smart. He just forgot to mention that he can only be smart as long as Hillary Reagan stays crooked.
Trump doesn't pay taxes. He gets away with this because he has outright purchased the politicians who oversee the process (i.e. Billary) and gets them to make sure the law stays on his side while the average Joe Nobody keeps paying for the roads his business vehicles rely on. I can't stand the idea of him winning, but I have to admit, he was right when he said that made him smart. He just forgot to mention that he can only be smart as long as Hillary Reagan stays crooked.
tytlyf
Not Religious
The emails were proven to contain classified information after the fact. They were not classified at the time. That's what RW media ignores to mention. Additionally, .01% of all the emails had confidential information (a total of 3 emails out of 30,000+). And confidential is the lowest form of classification. There was wrong doing on the people who sent those email to her, not her fault.
And you don't see any problem with releasing confidential national security information to the public?
Think hard.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
The NOL (net operating loss) rules are not a loophole, but an established business practice. If a business operates in the red, the NOL rules allow an entity to carry those losses to other years as an offset. The number of years backwards and forwards has changed over the years. It is currently set as 2 years back and twenty years forward.
In practice, the NOL is net against current period income, which reduces the remaining NOL to be carried forward. The use of an NOL is sound business practice.
The weird thing that I find about it in Trump's case, is that he's never generated enough taxable income in succeeding years to have used up his NOL.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
National security is one thing.
I suppose freedom of information act dosent seem stick or apply with this woman in any respect.
I'll give her gumption though.
Wagging the proverbial finger to those attempting to extract those godforsaken
e mails. Cackling away devilishly.