Trump open to raising taxes on the rich

[FATCAT 60,886]

3 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Yep, I'm 100 per cent serious. He used his campaign funds to fund a very expensive mini vacation for his family. Actually, no, the way he used the funds for his family members are not approved by campaign laws and could even be in violation of campaign guidelines. The FEC will probably be investigating that, along with the other four investigations that are ongoing on Bernie's campaign funds. 

Wrong. I can go pull up my tax returns from any computer with my email and password. It's easy to ck and everyone knows that! 

 

Ironic that you're so concerned how Bernie bought a Lobster, while Hillary funnels money shamefully back to her campaign. Also, I JUST explained that TurboTax isn't that simple. It wasn't a cloud service back in the day.

[FATCAT 60,886]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

We've had so many discussions about Hillary that I'd think you'd be informed enough to not repeat the same rhetoric against her, especially when I've almost always used factual arguments and logical deductions.

So I'm not shocked you hold the viewpoint that opinions cannot change. It's fine that you don't like her, but stop trying to paint her as something she isn't with assumptions. 

They aren't assumptions, they're observations. Surly you'd be informed on your own candidates rhetoric.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, FATCAT said:

They aren't assumptions, they're observations. Surly you'd be informed on your own candidates rhetoric.

And you don't think that perhaps your observations are formed from a perspective of bias?

I'm perfectly aware of Hillary's pros and cons, and I find any discussion on here about her issues to be vastly blown out of proportion and almost always intentionally framed in negative context with revisionist history.

[FATCAT 60,886]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

revisionist history.

Oh, so you know a big part of Hillary's rhetoric.

DOMA is a prime example of that.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Oh, so you know a big part of Hillary's rhetoric.

DOMA is a prime example of that.

Good thing Hillary didn't implement it, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

If she supported her husband's bill, it's because she believed that it was a defensive action, one that MANY gay people who were actually alive around that time can attest to being necessary, even if it is controversial.

What's with you nitpicking every part of my post?

For ****s sake can't anyone here ever admit that they're wrong?

[ALGAYDO 35,053]

I love coming into these political threads to watch y'all debate/fight 

[Whispering 18,865]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Right, and as I've said repeatedly over dozens of threads, a decade is more than enough time to change course naturally.

Many don't have the experience following politics to understand what it means to take any position publicly and what the timing of when you do that actually means in terms of accomplishing things in government. Do people honestly think that all the politicians who came out as pro gay marriage were actually staunchly against it before they came out for it?

Most Democrat politicians (Obama being a great example) were obviously in support of gay marriage long before they came out in public support of it. If Obama had been fully pro marriage in 2008, he'd have very likely lost the election. (because of public opinion at the time) Now, he has nominated justices who have helped turn the court into a body that has legalized gay marriage. So, sure if he'd come out in favor of it in 08 maybe he'd be more "pure" but he also wouldn't have been able to take office and actually do the actions that lead to progress on gay rights. 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Whispering said:

Many don't have the experience following politics to understand what it means to take any position publicly and what the timing of when you do that actually means in terms of accomplishing things in government. Do people honestly think that all the politicians who came out as pro gay marriage were actually staunchly against it before they came out for it?

Most Democrat politicians (Obama being a great example) were obviously in support of gay marriage long before they came out in public support of it. If Obama had been fully pro marriage in 2008, he'd have very likely lost the election. (because of public opinion at the time) Now, he has nominated justices who have helped turn the court into a body that has legalized gay marriage. So, sure if he'd come out in favor of it in 08 maybe he'd be more "pure" but he also wouldn't have been able to take office and actually do the actions that lead to progress on gay rights. 

 

This is definitely a practical perspective of evolution.

[FATCAT 60,886]

11 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Good thing Hillary didn't implement it, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

If she supported her husband's bill, it's because she believed that it was a defensive action, one that MANY gay people who were actually alive around that time can attest to being necessary, even if it is controversial.

What's with you nitpicking every part of my post?

For ****s sake can't anyone here ever admit that they're wrong?

“It’s ridiculous. There was no threat in the immediate vicinity of 1996 of a constitutional amendment. It came four years later...It may be that she needs to revisit the facts of what happened.”

Elizabeth Birch, Executive director of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004

[Whispering 18,865]

12 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Ironic that you're so concerned how Bernie bought a Lobster, while Hillary funnels money shamefully back to her campaign. Also, I JUST explained that TurboTax isn't that simple. It wasn't a cloud service back in the day.

What Bernie did is against funding guidelines...but that's okay with you because you support him. Hillary us raising money in the exact same way Obama did and providing for downticket candidates in the same way Obama did, in the way that was set up by the DNC long before the campaign ever started. 

That tax line you've read somewhere from some delusional Bernie supporter is BS. You can easily download old tax returns by signing onto TurboTax and paying a small fee and every year that you have used TurboTax Online will appear. Click on the year you are looking for and click the Download/print return (PDF) link. Your tax return will start downloading automatically. This has been the case for years! Bernie and his team could easily turn over his tax returns (actually in their entirety like others have done) with a nominal fee and a few clicks. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

“It’s ridiculous. There was no threat in the immediate vicinity of 1996 of a constitutional amendment. It came four years later...It may be that she needs to revisit the facts of what happened.”

Elizabeth Birch, Executive director of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004

Quoting one person as fact now  

And "immediate" is irrelevant, as we all well know. The actions taken then tamed the dissent that could have been much worse. Without those actions, who knows where the USA could have ended up. Averting the storm made way for what we have today.

Stop revising history. Even gay people back then thought it was necessary. Sit down.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Whispering said:

*snip*

I love his assumptions that any money that goes into the Clinton Foundation funds her campaign

It's like they don't know that the Clinton foundation has been responsible for a lot of changes, initiatives, and expensive relief efforts 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

A literal google search

If people think these cost little, then they clearly don't know politics. I worked at a Media center which held two conferences a year that drained almost all of its funding from fundraising  

The GOP have repeatedly tried to make conspiracy theories about it and some people here are eating them up  

I can't. I need air.

[Morphine Prince 109,648]

Nvm guys 

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

55 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Are you ****ing serious? Do I have to bring up Clinton's multi-million fundraisers that she claims went to the states down-ticket candidates, that actually went RIGHT BACK into her campaign. You're acting like an invitation to speak at the Vatican was some sham. It was an honor, and the funds were used fairly.

Yes... this money went back to her campaign and little of that money went to the state's coffers (so far) but it's a bit misleading. Here's how it works. The DNC has set up a formula and this is it:  

"The first $2,700 goes to the Clinton campaign, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC, and any remaining funds are to be distributed among the state parties."

The state coffers have seen very little money at the time Politico published their misleading story (April) because why would the DNC distribute the money now when the elections are in NOVEMBER. The way it's going to be done (and this is how they traditionally do it) is that towards the end of the campaign, the DNC will appropriately distribute the funds based on the formula they use so that the money gets appropriately distributed across all 3 parties: the Clinton campaign, the state parties, and the DNC. The DNC decides how they want to distribute the funds they receive: if a (House or Senate seat) race is really competitive in one state, no doubt they'll spend more money there. 

Tl;dr: the story published by Politico is extremely misleading. Of course state's have seen very little money now because the elections are in November. As Election Day gets nearer the state coffer's will see that money roll through. And if by some chance they don't, I will definitely point this out. 

 

[KingRedd 3,139]

This election will be very messy lol so much shade will be thrown. Hillary and the Democrats haven't even began to assassinate Trunps character yet... These next few months lmao