Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[TurtleMeister]

At a Trump rally in Pennsylvania he said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/

You will never ever have this chance again. Not going to happen again… You have one magnificent chance.

Personal opinion:
He could be right. The Democrats were able to stop Sanders. And the Republicans, if they can survive, will not allow their party to be hijacked again. It may be our only chance to break away from the status quo. But with the questionable character of the candidates and the future of the supreme court in the balance, what a predicament we've gotten ourselves into.

 

[Orodruin]

Trump is under fire concerning leaked 1995 Federal income tax forms showing he took a $915 M loss that could saved him from paying taxes for up to 18 yrs. This of course is legal for valid losses. But does a person commit that order of magnitude of his own money to his own business. One tries to insulate ones personal wealth from any business dealing that could result in a personal liability financial or otherwise. If he is so smart why did he risk his own wealth? He still had equity in the properties and their assets were they liquidated? Can some explain why he would have risked his own money?

But this is the thing. It seems to me that there are two options here:

1. What Trump did was a perfectly legal deduction due to valid losses.
2. What Trump did was intended tax evasion.

Option 2 is bad and should have people outraged. Option 1 is worse if you are looking for someone to take care of and nurture the entire US economy. I mean, it is fine if you lose your own money, it is less fine if you lose the money of the entire nation. Hillary already hinted at this in the debate and essentially spelled out the options:

First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. [...] Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes [...]

The first part of the quote essentially hinting at option 1, that Trump perhaps is not as successful as he claims to be.

 

[gleem]

How was Trump able to declare a $915M loss? It turns out that the real estate broker crowd is an indeed privileged group.tax wise that is.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-donald-trump-turned-the-tax-code-into-a-giant-tax-shelter/ar-BBwUYBj?li=BBnbfcN

Mr. Trump’s records indicate that there was an attached statement that explained the net operating loss being carried forward. “That’s so tantalizing,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “I’d love to see that statement.”

Mr. Trump, of course, is free to release it. It would probably answer many questions about the source of the losses. It would also help explain whether these were legitimate business losses or “accounting gimmicks and abusive tax shelters,” as Mr. Rosenthal put it.

There are a number of accounting tactics that Mr. Trump might have used to generate such a huge loss, some of them considered highly aggressive and of dubious legitimacy, accounting experts said.

Given the dire state of Mr. Trump’s businesses at the time, he might have been able to record write-downs of assets under a doctrine known as “abandonment,” an aggressive accounting tactic used when an investor walks away from a worthless or nearly worthless asset and writes off the entire capital investment in the property.

There is also the question of Mr. Trump’s debt. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed $832 million of debt related to his casinos and other assets. Under tax code provisions available to real estate developers, he could take the full amount as a deduction even if he didn’t invest a dime of his own money.

Ordinarily, that deduction would be recaptured when the debt was forgiven or the underlying assets sold. If the debt were forgiven, Mr. Trump would have to report that as income. But there are various exceptions. If Mr. Trump was insolvent at the time — if his debts exceeded his assets — he might have avoided having to report the forgiveness of debt as income. Of course, if that was the case, it further undermines his claims to being an astute businessman.

There are other provisions, too, that might have allowed Mr. Trump to deduct the loans but never have to report them as income.

Real estate developers are also uniquely able to realize losses as soon as they occur, but defer gains, often indefinitely, through such tactics as like-kind exchanges. “It’s heads Trump wins, and tails the government loses,” Mr. Knoll said.

Now think of all those home owners who went under water from the housing collapse of 2009 who had to eat their losses.

 

[russ_watters]

If Hillary said that, she was probably being flip. And given that I've let Trump slide on that (a lot), I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt here as well.

 

[Student100]

Assassination is a venerable practice in war and its extension politics. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli took the notion seriously, wrote of it seriously, and these two immortal authors are read to this very day by all serious students of war and politics. Aside from its dubious legality and morality, its a quite useful and effective practice to this very day and hour. The ends justify the means and might makes right - no question about it in this world.

It's also highly illegal according to US law.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's also highly illegal according to US law.

Well Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen and he was "droned" in Yemen. The legal argument is that the US is in a state of war against "radical islamists" who directly threaten the US homeland. I'm not posting this to defend or oppose this view. I'm just stating a fact.

What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced it.

EDIT: Apparently the offending posts have been deleted, but the posts referencing it stand. At least my point is made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html?_r=0

 

[Student100]

Well Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen and he was "droned" in Yeman. The legal argument is that the US is in a state of war against "radical islamists" who directly threaten the US homeland. I'm not posting this to defend or oppose this view. I'm just stating a fact.

What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced this.

EDIT: Apparently the offending post has been deleted, but the posts referencing it stand. At least my point is made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html?_r=0

You're confusing targeted killings with assassinations. One depends on context and can range from perfectly okay to legally murky, while the latter is always illegal.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're confusing targeted killings with assassinations. One depends on context and can range from perfectly okay to legally murky, while the latter is always illegal.

OooK. So if the President says "Kill the SOB!", that's illegal. But if the President says "Assassinate the SOB!", that's legal. Right?

 

[Student100]

OooK. So if the President says "Kill the SOB!", that's illegal. But if the President says "Assassinate the SOB!", that's legal. Right?

Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.

 

[russ_watters]

Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.

Agreed. There are certainly grey areas, but non-government non-combatant would generally be over it...unless you consider him a spy...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.

OK, but how do you define "combatant". Awlaki was not directly involved in combat nor was he known to be directing or planning specific hostile actions against the US at the time he was killed. He was encouraging violence via the internet and a lot of people are listening to his sermons even now. If you include these activities as a justification for assassination, what's left? Essentially non combatants who shout "death to America" and shake their fists. I doubt anyone in the US government is seriously suggesting we kill all of them.

In other words, it's a nearly meaningless distinction when you include "grey areas".

BTW you did not make the distinction between "targeted killing" and assassination in post 1230.

"Assassination is a venerable practice in war and its extension politics. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli took the notion seriously, wrote of it seriously, and these two immortal authors are read to this very day by all serious students of war and politics. Aside from its dubious legality and morality, its a quite useful and effective practice to this very day and hour. The ends justify the means and might makes right - no question about it in this world."

"It's also highly illegal according to US law."

 

[Dotini]

Agreed. There are certainly grey areas, but non-government non-combatant would generally be over it...unless you consider him a spy...

Yes, Anwar al Awlaki was a cleric, not a combatant. And his son was also killed. But I suppose that doesn't count because it was collateral, and supposedly unintended.

Now, Snowden and Assange may be "spies", as they reveal dirty secrets. Death by drone execution may be justified - just don't call it assassination, and we can feel better about it.

EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".
Today, as I understand it, a US President can legally order anyone killed anywhere in the world with the rubber-stamp of a secret court.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".

Yes, but Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment and removal from office. There were other reasons but this statement did not curry favor in the House of Representatives.

 

[Astronuc]

If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both split the electoral vote equally outside of New Mexico (5 electoral votes), and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) wins, then that would be an interesting and bizarre twist to an already troubled election.

Some news media are speculating Johnson could take the lead in NM. "Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

Interesting map. Several swing or battleground states are critical.

On the other hand, "Johnson’s chief advantage in this election is the possession of a surname that isn’t Trump or Clinton. The two major parties are now led by the two most unpopular major-party candidates in modern history. The cases against Clinton and Trump are well known, but the case for Johnson requires, well, a case for Johnson."

The Case of Gary Johnson, or Not!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/no-not-gary-johnson/502718/

 

[Evo]

EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".
Today, as I understand it, a US President can legally order anyone killed anywhere in the world with the rubber-stamp of a secret court.

Please post your source.

 

[Dotini]

Please post your source.

For the Nixon quote: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nixon-say-When-the-President-does-it-that-means-that-it-is-not-illegal
For the targeted killings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing
and the FISA court: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?_r=0

 

[Evo]

What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced it.

Sorry. my computer was broken and had to get a new one. No RT is not an appropriate source, nor are any other Russia owned or controlled propaganda sources.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As far as I can tall, every source suggesting Hilly Clinton planned to "drone" Julian Assange comes from Julian Assange.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.

 

[Student100]

Hillary and Julius think alike. I'm not so sure I wish to enable and support a person who thinks killing people, toppling nations and putting whole populations fleeing into chaos is such jolly good fun. Although I do think Sun Tzu and Machiavelli might look fondly upon her, as they would upon Caesar. She would probably be a good Caesar, if that's what you really want, maybe something like General Douglas MacArthur if he had been loosed from his chains.

What kind of fantasy world have you concocted for yourself?

Yes, Sun Tzu once said...

When your nemesis releases diplomatic cables, you must strike them with drones swiftly.

People who died centuries ago are irrelevant to the modern worlds politics and warfare, and especially this thread.

This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.

It still feels like a debate on Trump and Hillary. I guess that's to be excepted, but was hoping to hear more about their ideologies myself.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course I did.

The important thing is I managed to get the email accepted into the literature of this forum. Phew!
Our readers are smart enough to take it from there, and don't need me to tell them what to think.

Yes they do. You are required by forum rules to clearly state your point when you make a post. To not do so, while posting an odd and not very useful quote/link makes it look like you are just trying to stir-up trouble. Please do better.

 

[russ_watters]

This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.

I'm not watching, but I bet I can sum it up:
"Your running mate is crazier/more corrupt than mine."
"Is not."
"Is too."
"Is not."
"Is too."

 

[Student100]

I'm not watching, but I bet I can sum it up:
"Your running mate is crazier/more corrupt than mine."
"Is not."
"Is too."
"Is not."
"Is too."

Basically,

This is pretty funny: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-...-debate-winnerbefore-debate/story?id=42570234

They declared the winner... before it even began.

This is even better though: https://gop.com/who-won-the-vice-presidential-debate/

 

[gleem]

I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".

Yes I remember hearing that too. On TV from the David Frost Show interview of Richard Nixon. May 17, 1977
http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/72...cerpts_from_a_1977_Interview_with_David_Frost

Frost:...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?

Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?

Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress.[1]

All he's really doing is reiterating one of the basic arguments that most Presidents have made throughout history: that there are times where the government takes action in the interests of national security or public safety and that imperative can, at times, override certain legal protections. It's not about absolute power as much as it's about the government having to balance the sometimes-juxtaposing concepts of the rule of law and public safety.

 

[Orodruin]

Our readers are smart enough to take it from there, and don't need me to tell them what to think.

You mean that the majority of the PF readership is smart enough to understand the difference between nonlegal and illegal? I would certainly hope so.

The "evidence" presented certainly would not be enough to take any legal measures against Hillary, but maybe you prefer nonlegal methods?

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/04/how-mike-pence-explains-donald-trumps-1-billion-loss.html

Mike Pence defended Tuesday Donald Trump's reported 1995 loss of nearly $1 billion, saying his running mate "brilliantly" used American tax laws after some "tough times."

However, one of Trump's former accountants asserts, "Donald Trump had no part in preparing his controversial 1995 tax returns that legally allowed him to avoid paying federal taxes for 18 years, the accountant who prepared the taxes told Inside Edition."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-trump-accountant-speaks-tax-193700328.html
“None whatsoever,” Jack Mitnick, 80, replied when asked how involved Trump was in his tax preparations.

So much for Trump's claim that he used the brilliantly used the tax laws. Well, he paid for someone who knew how to do that. So, no, Trump is not so brilliant.

Meanwhile, CNBC reports "During the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence won for himself but not for Donald Trump, a Trump advisor tells CNBC." Bear in mind that it's CNBC reporting.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/pence-upstaged-kaine-boss-too-122021455.html

Mike Pence for President?

 

[Evo]

Mike Pence for President?

You cannot be serious.

Think Trump Is Scary? Check Out Mike Pence On The Issues.
Trump might blow up the world, but Pence would set the clock back to 1954.

Abortion

As governor of Indiana, Pence signed the most abortion-restrictive regulations in the nation, banning abortion even in cases where the fetus has a “genetic abnormality” such as Down syndrome and holding doctors legally liable if they had knowingly performed such procedures. The law also required that aborted fetal tissue be buried or cremated. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in a landmark abortion case in June, a federal judge blocked the law from going into effect.

He led the national fight to defund Planned Parenthood and forced so many of its clinics to close in Indiana that he triggered an H.I.V. epidemic in one county.

LGBT Rights
in 2015, Pence helped pass one of the nation’s harshest “religious freedom” laws that would have protected businesses who wanted to refuse service to LGBT people if they cited religious objections. After businesses pulled out of expansion plans into the state, Pence signed an amended version of the law that was nominally intended to provide protection for sexual orientation and gender identity.

As a congressman, he opposed federal funding that would support treatment for people suffering from H.I.V. and AIDS, unless the government simultaneously invested in programs to discourage people from engaging in same-sex relationships.

He has resisted changes to hate-crime laws that would have included acts against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. And he was against the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a Clinton administration policy that allowed gays to serve in the military.

He has said publicly, “I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history.”

Immigration

In 2006, Pence proposed an immigration compromise that envisioned a guest worker program that required undocumented immigrants to “self-deport” before returning to America legally. His plan did not offer a path to citizenship, nor did it propose a “deportation force.” He’s down with the big beautiful wall. He fought against having Syrian refugees settled in Indiana.

continuned...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...nce-on-the-issues_us_57f137d5e4b095bd896a11db

I suggest read where he stands on the issues, he scares the heck out of me.

http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htm

Mike Pence on Civil Rights

• Future of conservatism demands traditional marriage. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

• Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
• Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules. (Apr 2002)

ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

• Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

• Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)

 

[Astronuc]

I just asked the question. It's not an endorsement. I wouldn't vote for Pence.

Meanwhile, The Atlantic tepidly endorses Hillary Clinton. Since 1857, they've only endorsed two presidential candidates, Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon Johnson (1964). They consider the current election of such significance, a true national emergency or existential threat to the republic.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/05/496754919/the-atlantic-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
Apparently, Clinton is flawed, but otherwise meets the minimum qualifications for presidential fitness and has experience. Trump is "less qualified, or ostentatiously unqualified, more so than any previous candidate in history."

 

[Evo]

I just asked the question. It's not an endorsement. I wouldn't vote for Pence.

Phew, I can call off the intervention.

Meanwhile, The Atlantic tepidly endorses Hillary Clinton. Since 1857, they've only endorsed two presidential candidates, Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon Johnson (1964). They consider the current election of such significance, a true national emergency or existential threat to the republic.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/05/496754919/the-atlantic-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
Apparently, Clinton is flawed, but otherwise meets the minimum qualifications for presidential fitness and has experience. Trump is "less qualified, or ostentatiously unqualified, more so than any previous candidate in history."

Yeah, this election is unlike any other that I know of. At least Clinton is qualified and we have an idea of what she will be like in office so we shouldn't have any "OMG, didn't see that coming" moments. It all still doesn't seem real.

 

[russ_watters]

I just asked the question. It's not an endorsement. I wouldn't vote for Pence.

Meanwhile, The Atlantic tepidly endorses Hillary Clinton. Since 1857, they've only endorsed two presidential candidates, Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon Johnson (1964). They consider the current election of such significance, a true national emergency or existential threat to the republic.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/05/496754919/the-atlantic-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
Apparently, Clinton is flawed, but otherwise meets the minimum qualifications for presidential fitness and has experience. Trump is "less qualified, or ostentatiously unqualified, more so than any previous candidate in history."

Trump has major issues, but I quibble with the characterization "unqualified". The only qualifications listed in the Constitution are demographics (age, citizenship), and have nothing to do with experience. I personally don't put a ton of value on government service as a "qualification"... I think we need a businessman to be CEO of the USA.

Trump's issue isn't that he is unqualified, it is that he isn't serious.

 

[Evo]

Trump's issue isn't that he is unqualified, it is that he isn't serious.

And maybe a bit too hot headed, lack of self control? And maybe acts/speaks first and thinks later? I think though if you compared Clinton's knowledge of world affairs with Trump, you'd have to say he's less qualified, could he or would he quickly get up to speed? I'm not willing to find out.

 

[Astronuc]

I think we need a businessman to be CEO of the USA.

Preferably a good business man, one who exhibits good judgment and exercises good ethics, including fiduciary responsibility, and not a real estate developer with deep insecurity.

Back in 1789, I imagine that those who authored and approved the Constitution expected some of them might be president, and they assumed qualifications. So many citizens were excluded from that opportunity, women and non-whites in particular.

The world is much more complex now in 2016, and it would be great to have a statesman with good business sense, and a sense of justice and fairness. That seems to be sorely lacking in recent administrations and candidates.

It would help also to know the Constitution, Constitutional law, the US Code, and Code of Federal Regulations, at least what each title/chapter covers.

 

[Astronuc]

How Trump is driving some believers away from the GOP
https://www.yahoo.com/news/evangeli...-some-believers-out-of-the-gop-090055268.html

Donald Trump may “love the evangelicals,” but the feeling is certainly not mutual among a good portion of them.

More than half of the most committed evangelical Christians didn’t support Donald Trump for president in the Republican primary. And although a majority of them have resigned themselves to backing him rather than supporting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, evangelicalism is changing in ways that may not be apparent to the casual observer.

Trump’s candidacy, in fact, is helping to accelerate the trend pushing some evangelicals away from an automatic affiliation with the Republican Party. Evangelicals oppose Trump for a few reasons: They view his character as repugnant and his temperament as dangerous. And while many of them do not like Clinton, they are not as alarmed by their policy disagreements with her as they are by the idea that the church would align itself with someone like Trump.

There's a new generation, and they are questioning their relationship with the GOP, especially with Trump as the GOP candidate. Interesting.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Please post your source.

Us oldsters remember well. I saw it on the news. Am I a good source?

 

[mheslep]

... not a real estate developer ...
Back in 1789, ...

George Washington was a real estate developer, and lost a lot money in some of his projects.
http://www.candocanal.org/articles/washington.html
Also was known for fierce temper, could swear a blue streak when roused.