Steven continues to talk a lot of sense on this thread.
An interesting take on the hispanic community’s reaction to the orang-utan hairpiece:
Would the white supremacist vote be a significant proportion of the voting population?
Not really, and not much at all outside the southern states. They get a lot of attention, but the significant growth in the US is not white supremacy, it’s anti-government “patriot” groups. That’s what’s behind the Trump phenomena, it’s anger at the government (both parties). Although it might be majority white, its not exclusively white if you look at the make up of Trump’s rallies.
That’s a bit like saying the EDL is not exclusively white because there’s a few useful idiot Indians in it.
This is a good thread, please stop ruining it with your braindead analysis
1 Like
It’s very baseline with himself and Fitzy. They are too biased towards the Witch to think clearly.
No it isn’t, and your comment amplifies the fact you know nothing about US politics. The anger at the government is across all demographics, except those who depend on the government (either work for the government or are supported by the government). Most people actually work for a living and have seen their wages in real terms stagnate for two decades while costs such as healthcare and education have skyrocketed. The straw that has broke the camel’s back is the economy was crashed by reckless gamblers, and the government intervened to protect those who caused the crash and implement policies that have benefited them even more (inflating asset classes that benefit only the 0.1%).
It has nothing to do with race or gender, that’s the big mistake that has led to so many being surprised by Trump’s popularity. The anger is pretty widespread.
1 Like
Is the the sort of petty, juvenile jibe that GOP supporters are going to be subjected to here from Camp Hilary for the next six months?
Analysis of brain dead people, mate, not brain dead analysis.
Yet another stellar contribution from you, not.
You just stated in your previous post that Trump’s support is largely based on the ideology of the whack job Patriot movement, which is pretty much exclusively white.
Now you’re contradicting yourself.
There’s no contradiction, your shallow understanding of the issues is creating one for you. The majority of people who work for a living have been negatively impacted by government policies and are angry. It’s quite simple, a vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same, a vote for Trump is a vote for something else. A lot of people are at the something else point, even if they (or Trump) have no idea what that might be. The fundamental issues behind Trump’s popularity have nothing to do with race or gender.
2 Likes
It’s very clear what a vote for Trump is - a vote to redistribute wealth sharply to the 1%, and even a quick glance at his tax plan will tell you that, as he plans to slash taxes on the wealthy from 39% to 25%, and to tear a hole in the budget which will end up with swingeing cuts which will most affect the ignorant suckers who plan to vote for him. It’s no wonder he loves the uneducated.
Although I’m not sure Trump himself has read his tax plan, as he doesn’t seem to know what’s in it when asked.
I bet he’s read his own tax returns though, which is why he refuses to disclose them. He’s fairly changed his tune from when he demanded Romney release his tax returns in 2012.
Nobody knows, including Trump, what his policies will be as they haven’t been developed yet. He hasn’t ruled out higher taxes on the wealthy. The way to go is lower taxes on working people and lower corporate taxes paid for by closing tax loopholes and higher taxes on the 0.1%. I suspect that’s where he will end up. Hillary can’t go there as she is owned by he 0.1%.
I suspect the reason he won’t disclose his tax returns is they will show his income is much lower than people expect. People confuse income and wealth, he probably has quite low taxable income.
1 Like
Trump has a published tax plan.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
Trump did rule out higher taxes on the wealthy. What he said was that he may have to accept a top marginal rate which is higher than the 25% in his plan. That rate would still be considerably lower than the current 39.6%.
Of course he tried to dress this up by dishonestly claiming to be talking about raising taxes for the wealthy, when he was actually still talking about slashing them.
Trump of course has nothing to do with the 0.1%, he just is one of them.
He also has nothing to do with the financial sector either, which is why he has appointed a former Goldman Sachs man as his chief fundraiser.
No candidate in the last 40 years has not released their tax returns. It’s kind of expected.
The wealthy don’t pay tax so the tax rate is irrelevant to them. You are confusing wealth and income. For example I could be worth $100B in this country and have taxable income of $1. Trump understands this because he is in (roughly) this category.
Lowering the top marginal tax rate is appropriate as it gives more discretionary income to people who work for a living. Far better to let people spend more of the money they legitimately earn than giving it to the state to fund a socialist utopia.
3 Likes
You really are a tremendous debater
2 Likes
I’m not confusing anything. As usual, it’s you who’s confused.
I don’t think anybody apart from perhaps yourself would ever confuse the US with a “socialist utopia” - a capitalist dystopia, perhaps, notwithstanding Obama’s efforts. It’s no wonder the infrastructure there is crumbling.
Republican tax cuts have decimated the US economy over the last four decades. The solution for Trump supporters, many of whom have been most affected by that, would appear to be more Republican tax cuts, ie, the main cause of the problem in the first place.
None other than Trump himself admitted Reagan’s tax cuts were “a disaster”. And now he wants to bring them back.
Proven economic failure has never been any barrier to the faith of true believers of voodoo economics.
He is the best in the business
“Socialist utopia” is an oxymoron, and clearly compared to most of Europe the US is still far from the concept thankfully. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Trump has no idea what he is talking about either on most subjects, he is just making it up as he goes along. Tax receipts did not decrease at all under Reagan, the 40 year average when Reagan took office was 18.1% of GDP, and under Reagan was 18.2%. The cuts in tax rates were offset by eliminating tax loopholes and shelters, and increased social security taxes. The results of the “Reagan tax cuts” are still hotly debated, but the evidence is the US experienced unprecedented economic growth in the late 80s and 90s, and many would attribute that at least in part to the changes in the tax structure. The marginal tax rate when Reagan took office was 70%, add in social security tax, state tax, sales tax, etc. and you are over 90%. What the fuck is the incentive to bother your hole setting up a business, or working your ass off to be a professional in any field if you are going to pay 90% in taxes?
What has decimated the US economy is insane levels of government spending. Reagan was guilty of this himself with his build up of the military, but since Reagan the great majority of the exponential increase is in entitlement spending, including the administration of entitlement programs. A good example is education, the US spends by far the most per capita in the developed world on first and second level education, and yet ranks bottom of the developed world in results. The liberal response to the problem is well we just need to spend more, when spending more is the fucking problem, as it just creates an even more useless bureaucracy. For balance, Republicans in office have been just as guilty as Democrats of ballooning debt based spending on totally inefficient government bureaucracies. The fundamental problem is not lower taxes, it is ballooning inefficient government spending.