No.Kevin McHugh said:
On gay marriage Gov. Pence is not significantly different from Obama in '08, and Pence is similar to, say, Reagan on abortion. I understand you disagree with these positions, but do you actually find them frightening? That is, were they frightening when held Obama or Reagan?Evo said:
Given they were wrong about Goldwater, The Atlantic is 1-1.Astronuc said:
Yes. And Pence goes even further. You may not find his homophobia and the defunding of Planned Parenthood and such things scary, I do. I disagree with probably everything on his "on the issues" page. It's not just "gay marriage", he backed allowing companies to discriminate against hiring gays, he is against laws against hate crimes.mheslep said:
I disagree with Pence on some of those issues too. I don't know why disagreement must become fear that provokes name calling, when the same gay marriage issue with Obama some years ago provoked a benign "not a fan" response, but now with Pence on the same issue he's called scary and homophobic.Evo said:
It's due to his other actions that I mentioned, as I said not just gay marriage. but much more important issues.mheslep said:
http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htmEvo said:
A contemporary real estate developer like Trump is very different from one 2 centuries. Furthermore, Trump is no George Washington. Did Washington lose his own money, likely, or borrow heavily from others and lose money of others? Did Washington fail to pay taxes, or rather find ways not to pay taxes to the government?mheslep said:
If Trump did not do anything illegal concerning his taxes then I don't understand why it should be an issue. Shouldn't the issue be the tax code itself?Astronuc said:
The tax code is certainly an issue. Is there any belief or evidence to suggest either candidate will encourage Congress to improve the tax code?TurtleMeister said:
I would certainly expect someone running for POTUS to know some of the world leaders with whom he or she will have to deal.
Astronuc said:
mheslep said:
Astronuc said:
Intentionally misleading word choice aside, I would certainly expect - even hope - a smart man like Washington would have taken advantage of all the deductions and legal shelters available to him in order to legally "fail to pay taxes". Wouldn't you? Don't you?Astronuc said:
It's more of a rhetorical question; no misleading choice of words. I don't take advantage of all deductions and legal shelters. My income tax rate is about 15% (including deferred income) with another 1.4% to Medicare/Medicaid and 6.1% to SS. While I take some deductions (e.g., mortgage, standard, . . .), there are charitable donations and business expenses that I don't use as deductions.russ_watters said:
I'll be explicit: "Fail to pay..." is roughly the legal definition of tax evasion. With the qualifier that came after, the phrase is incorrect and the sentence as a whole is self-contradictory.Astronuc said:
Fair enough; for me also it is a question of cost/benefit. I have in the past taken deductions for home office equipment, but it is a pain to itemize for a few dollars, so I don't always do it. But if the stakes were tens or hundreds of thousands, I would.
Journalists don't need to ask him such questions or perhaps can't because he short-circuits (credit to Hillary for inventing the term) the questions he is asked. Take his "I know more about ISIS than the generals" statement and apply it to this question and you'll have his likely answer.HossamCFD said:
Same here.russ_watters said:
You'll recall that the scoflaws prior to the revolution went to great lengths to refuse to pay taxes on imports from Great Britain. Tea, etc. After establishment of the US, no US income tax was collected for the first 130 years or so. Also, aside from the civil war, the spending of the US government never exceeded 4% of US GDP from 1792 until WWI. Now federal spending approaches 25% of GDP. Total state, local, and federal almost 40%. The point being, that there was no leviathan government collecting enough tax to motivate many to avoid it. As you say, things were different back then, especially the size of government.Astronuc said:
Not just Trump. That UN diplomat, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein of Jordan, decided to use his diplomatic passport to speak in Cleveland about the US election, and earlier also unloaded on political leaders in half a dozen other countries. Not among the targets: any of the middle eastern totalitarian governments. How does he find the time in between invited speeches from Hollywood movie stars at the UN (this year Leo DiCaprio, Emma Watson).SW VandeCarr said:
If Clinton was built in such a way as to have said something like that, instead of her all-is-well except for the "deplorable" Americans narative, she'd be 20 points ahead. But she is not built in such a way.Astronuc said:
Clinton could have chosen her words more carefully. If she mentioned 'half', rather than those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic", then she's writing off many people. Clinton could have simply acknowledged those who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change, and who may be the majority of Trump supporters.olivermsun said:
I agree with you there.Astronuc said:
It might be a challenge, but through positive and constructive engagement. If one wishes to change the hearts and minds of someone, then one has to find a positive way, knowing that it may not work in all cases. One can address the issues without denigrating the other.olivermsun said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/will-donald-trump-quit-republican-party-2016-10
It's disappointing to say the least, but I'm old enough to remember JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Bill Clinton and others of which recordings reveal substance that would not be allowed on PF. I'll look for some links if needs be, others might find them quicker than I can.Astronuc said:
I remember comments of LBJ and Nixon, and we all know of Clinton's scandals, but they are all in the past. Trump is the current candidate and GOP nominee.RonL said:
Yes, all that is true but happily we now live in a time when denigrating blacks, women, the disabled, etc, is more quickly and strongly condemned than it was even 20 years ago.RonL said:It's disappointing to say the least, but I'm old enough to remember JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Bill Clinton and others of which recordings reveal substance that would not be allowed on PF. I'll look for some links if needs be, others might find them quicker than I can.