2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
Find me some mainstream sources and we can talk about it. It seems that much of this is being driven jilted Bernie fans or various conservatives, both with an axe to grind with Hillary.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 and not to mention that if you listen to the latest white house white house correspondents dinner the number of people who leave government roles to roles in the media is well pretty disheartening.

Still there the rules of the game and complaining about it will only do so much, you've(In this Bernie and his supporters) got to find alternative ways around.

Also out of interest(And if it isn't too much trouble) @InfiniteBoredom do you actually like Clinton and if yes why or is it a case of she has a better chance in the general election against Trump situation. I just find it hard to see why anyone would vote for Clinton in terms of policy or personality.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.pdf
http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2013/08/washington_post_owner_jeff_bez.php#.Vmcsl9IrKUM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-drops-popular-tax-avoidance-strategy-173922873.html
:confused:
Click to expand...

I guess CTJ argues that the costs that Amazon and others claim from stock option awards is unfair, and they add that back to arrive at their number for company profits. There's an argument if the stated cost in company financials is lower/too low vs. the cost considered for tax purposes. But then I look at Amazon's cash flow statement and the adjustment CTJ says is where they're making all their juice is actually a negative vs. the positive I'd expect... we're way beyond my understanding of the tax code.

My point was you go off of the reported (and audited) financial statements, and they're not quite Apple. Because of their low profits situation their rate even goes above the 30-40% range that would be the normal for a company with global operations.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I found the Reuters article and gave it a browse. I can't argue any of the allegations, since my understanding of corporate tax doesn't go beyond what's required not to be a total fool. It is still a weird situation, for a company who's annual effective tax rates read back: 61%, 315%, 46%, 107%, 32%, and then in 2010 they had 23% tax rate. Not quite the poster child for tax "evasion".

Maybe its VAT they're skimming... dunno.
Click to expand...

I never said that he committed the act of tax evasion even so there is at least one probe going on. He used legal means (at least they were legal till 2015 and the problem is still not solved comprehensively) to minimize Amazons tax burden in various countries by transferring the majority of profits (that amazon made in Europe) into countries like Luxenbourg, where he had to pay little to no taxes on those profits. He might pay his taxes in the USA (no idea about that at all), but he was/is playing the system in Europe. My guess is that amazon has various accounts outside the USA, where all this untaxed money is going to and they don´t need to pay any taxes on this until they bring it back into the USA. Isn´t this a fairly common thing, that various big US corporations are doing? - waiting for a president that is willing to "make a good deal" (aka lower taxation), when they officially declare those accounts?

I have no clue about the numbers, that you quoted and quite honestly I am too lazy to look into that in detail, when enough media organisations reported about it.

In general I am actually with you; he created an amazing service and the world needs more people like him. At the same time navigates the tax systems in a (mostly) legal, but problematic way by abusing loopholes. He is also precisely the kind of guy who gets cosy with purchasable politicians like Hillary to tweak legislation in his favour. He is not playing by the same rules like "normal" people, so to speak. He is still an outstanding entrepreneur.
 
Sweet Square said:
Also out of interest(And if it isn't too much trouble) @InfiniteBoredom do you actually like Clinton and if yes why or is it a case of she has a better chance in the general election against Trump situation. I just find it hard to see why anyone would vote for Clinton in terms of policy or personality.
Click to expand...

I'm indifferent towards her tbh. As is the case with most politicians, even Obama back in 08. The only politician of modern time that I have affinity for is her husband.

So, not sure if it's a yes in your book. The Berners in this thread would have you believe I'm unapologetically a shill though. She reminds me of the overachieving girl in school. Always striving to excel and to please not out of confidence but duty and insecurity.
 
sun_tzu said:
I think so... sanctions, arrest warrants etc

Though prior to that one would hope the military personnel would refuse to carry out the actions in the first place as they are war crimes?
Click to expand...

Some would, some would not. There are plenty of right-wing nutjobs in the military that side with Trump. The majority of military tend to vote GOP anyhow but not sure the percentages, probably in the 60/40 range would be my guess but it could be closer to 50/50. Not sure how many are actually registered to a party, I'd say few because most enlisted personnel really don't take the time to do such things. Veterans certainly tend to lean GOP.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm indifferent towards her tbh. As is the case with most politicians, even Obama back in 08. The only politician of modern time that I have affinity for is her husband.

So, not sure if it's a yes in your book. The Berners in this thread would have you believe I'm unapologetically a shill though. She reminds me of the overachieving girl in school. Always striving to excel and to please not out of confidence but duty and insecurity.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
So Mark Halperin, MSNBC´s senior political analysist, the same guy who called Obama a dick, has come out -

Halperin on MSNBC now just predicted based on "instinct and a little bit of reporting" that HRC will choose a prominent GOP woman as VP.

You don´t even hear political conjecture that absurd on here. This guy is as about as main stream media as you can get. Harvard, Time, Bloomberg . . . son of a famous political grunt.
 
Nobby style said:
So Mark Halperin, MSNBC´s senior political analysist, the same guy who called Obama a dick, has come out -

Halperin on MSNBC now just predicted based on "instinct and a little bit of reporting" that HRC will choose a prominent GOP woman as VP.

You don´t even hear political conjecture that absurd on here. This guy is as about as main stream media as you can get. Harvard, Time, Bloomberg . . . son of a famous political grunt.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
The drumbeat of Hillary picking Liz seems to be picking up. How poetic would it be for two women to politically subjugate Trump's political ambitions.
 
There's a bit of grilling on Drumpf from the media about him masquerading as his own publicist back in the 90s. Even made it onto the local news channel here in Melb. It'd be so anticlimactic if this is the thing that actually damage him with his cult followers.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
There's a bit of grilling on Drumpf from the media about him masquerading as his own publicist back in the 90s. Even made it onto the local news channel here in Melb. It'd be so anticlimactic if this is the thing that actually damage him with his cult followers.
Click to expand...

I don't get why this is a story. It's very weak. Presumably they are just desperate for any story at the moment since nothing is really happening.
 
Grinner said:
I don't get why this is a story. It's very weak. Presumably they are just desperate for any story at the moment since nothing is really happening.
Click to expand...

Ye, it's amusing but nothing really worth obsessing over. Then again, the media nowadays is all about soundbytes and sensationalism, so there's appeal in this as oppose to serious discussion about his tax rates, refusal to release returns etc...
 
I've been wondering if Trumpo is scared of being POTUS and might self-sabotage. I don't think he even believed it would get this far.
 
Grinner said:
I've been wondering if Trumpo is scared of being POTUS and might self-sabotage. I don't think he even believed it would get this far.
Click to expand...

I still sort of wonder if it was all about self publicity. When he skipped the Fox debate I wondered if he was trying to self-sabotage as even he thought it was ridiculous that he's the front runner.

Now he must be like "FFS this has gone too far, I might actually fecking win."
 
Information for the Sanders post-mortem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191465/m...ction 2016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Favourable ratings (millennials):

Sanders% Clinton% Trump%
All millennials 55 38 22

Men 53 32 28
Women 57 45 16

Whites 52 28 29
Blacks 67 60 14 :eek:
Hispanics 52 50 14

Conservatives 29 26 36
Moderates 57 37 22 :eek:
Liberals 78 51 9

No college 47 38 26
Some college 57 32 23
Graduated college 62 39 21
Postgraduate work 65 53 11 :D among PhD students/postdocs, I have seen Bernie at 7/7.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm indifferent towards her tbh. As is the case with most politicians, even Obama back in 08. The only politician of modern time that I have affinity for is her husband.

So, not sure if it's a yes in your book. The Berners in this thread would have you believe I'm unapologetically a shill though. She reminds me of the overachieving girl in school. Always striving to excel and to please not out of confidence but duty and insecurity.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
The larger question is why Hillary is fighting over 2-3 delegates when she has a 300 delegate lead, and a favourable map ahead of her. If she wants unity, the thing to do now is to coast to victory not grab every last delegate with questionable tactics.
 
That was a preliminary count to start the convention, the official count was announced later and Hillary still has more.

And no, she's not fighting it. The ones who voted for her in the caucuses turned out after the clusterfeck at Clark County convention. The final count is 20-15, or, you know, the actual result of the caucuses had Sandersnistas not feck with the process to undemocratically swing it to 18-17.
 
berbatrick said:
Omnishambles. She should highlight this, the democratic voice of her voters is being silenced.



A day before the convention, the state party (which has endorsed her pretty unanimously) gave very confusingly worded directions to delegates (it looked like you didn't have to attend if you had indicated you were sure of you candidate, but that was true only for 1 day) , and there was a ton of stuff on the Sanders subreddit about that. Maybe that's why more Sanders people got in.

Caucuses - and delegates - are not very democratic. It should be an all-primary system, and either the winner is decided by total vote counts or states are weighted by some combination of population, turnout, percent registered Dems, and proportion of Dems in statewide office.
Click to expand...

Also, 'questionable tactics' seem to be accepted here.
 
:confused:

Where is the acceptance? You're looking for a narrative (from me) that doesn't exist.

Edit: were you so convinced I was gong to be hypocritical that you didn't bother to read the post you quoted? Is that what supporting Hillary makes you expect of everyone else?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
That was a preliminary count to start the convention, the official count was announced later and Hillary still has more.

And no, she's not fighting it. The ones who voted for her in the caucuses turned out after the clusterfeck at Clark County convention. The final count is 20-15, or, you know, the actual result of the caucuses had Sandersnistas not feck with the process to undemocratically swing it to 18-17.
Click to expand...


There are 2 different votes here - the preliminary count, as well as a procedural vote. The video I posted was of a procedural vote.
 
berbatrick said:
:confused:

Where is the acceptance? You're looking for a narrative (from me) that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You were all for righting the wrong after Bernie supporters fecked the Clark County convention. The Hillary supporters in NV did just that.

MN Sandersnistas did the same.

You are free to think this is a straight directive from the Clinton campaign though. They haven't run a single negative ad against Sanders all cycle, and now suddenly they will wind them up for 2 delegates swing.
 
The problem is not with the final count. It's with the fact that the vote was done without everyone present. And as I said in the next post there were 2 votes involved. There was no redo for this.

"Haven't run a single negative ad" -- nor has Sanders. But we can both point out instances of surrogates attacking and in Chelsea's case, lying.
 
berbatrick said:
The problem is not with the final count. It's with the fact that the vote was done without everyone present. And as I said in the next post there were 2 votes involved. There was no redo for this.

"Haven't run a single negative ad" -- nor has Sanders. But we can both point out instances of surrogates attacking and in Chelsea's case, lying.
Click to expand...

The procedural vote was to approve of the convention rules, Bernie delegates missed the deadline for rule change so filed a petition on the floor to have them changed. 2/3 of total delegates are required for that, however, so they didn't get what they wanted. Riot!

Oh and there's also this.



:lol:

Sums up all of Sanders's campaign in a nutshell. All passion, no organisation.
 
There are tweets from non-partisan journalists suggesting that the vote started while people were in queue. Should they perhaps have rioted before the vote to get in in time?


And :lol:
Mining a single downvoted comment on a semi-dead subreddit as proof of a larger trend. Wow. I could post like a 1000 more posts from the thread in r/SandersforPresident but that's laughably silly.
 
I've spent the past few days arguing with the Trump > Hillary crowd on the Sanders sub but honestly their reasoning is easier to follow than yours.
 
I'm actually surprised you took the time to argue with said crowd. Even as fond of argument as I do, I just can't ever be bothered to do that.

My reasoning in this case is simple. Sandersnistas gamed the system to gain advantage in CCC. Shills turned out to right their perceived wrong. The former didn't get their way so rioted at the convention. Not hard to follow really.

Caucuses are clusterfeck in general. If you've already gamed them to your benefits then don't cry foul when you have them done to you.
 
Here, another video:


If HRC wants/needs party unity, this is not the way to do it. The person in charge is her supporter. A recount would do nothing but prove her right.
 
Frankly, I think they are past caring about optics at this points. Overtures will be made, but if the Sanders crowd is staunch in not voting for her then good for them. Polling data suggest that it's a small minority anyway.
 
Check out the ESPN 30 for 30 'Small Potatoes' about the USFL startup and demise. It features heavily on Trump (made in 2009) and how his arrival to the USFL changed the direction of the upstart league. This is exactly the kind of asshole, arrogant person he is.

 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Frankly, I think they are past caring about optics at this points. Overtures will be made, but if the Sanders crowd is staunch in not voting for her then good for them. Polling data suggest that it's a small minority anyway.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm assuming the "small minority" is the 20-30% of Bernie supporters who are Bernie-or-bust?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.