Official 1st Presidential Debate Thread

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

and considering that most of his supporters don't have a college education, well, he probably thinks his supporters are stupid, too, although, he barely has an education himself since his father pulled strings to get him from a community college to Wharton.

Also, I'm pretty sure he has tax accountants doing his taxes, not him. So, his tax accountants may be smart, but he's not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

Thanks for that...wow.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone fill me in what Trump was talking about with respect to Rosie O'Donnell and what it was she "deserved"?

OMG! Had never seen that. Trump voters-what do you think of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two DT trolls on this thread

Honey, there are more than two people here who support Trump.
Sorry.

Good grief , you're going to need each other on election night when you're handed your third straight loss of the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

Honestly, it is smart to take advantage of the tax code, and most smart business people do. Mitt Romney certainly did. I am not privy to the tax dealings of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates but I would be surprised if they paid more than they were legally required to do.

It is, however, pretty tone deaf to boast about not paying taxes when your base is people who are struggling in a shitty economy. It is ... shall we say ... a touch arrogant. However, since it doesn't seem to hurt him with his base, I guess he is onto something.

[Anonymous]

Clinton was well rehearsed, prepared, polished. It was a show. However, Trump was sincere and I am curious about NATO funding as well as NATO anti-terror.

Trump was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Localities and crime. Is NYC safer than pre-Guiliani days? Yes. Have we let down our cities ? Yes. No one deserves to live in these conditions in Chicago. So why did many AA's move to cities in the North like Detroit and Chicago? Jobs.

Trump was too polite. Ford is moving production of specific vehicles to Mexico - 2800 jobs but says those 2800 jobs will be replaced with other jobs in Michigan. Now why not have the 2800 jobs + 2800 NEW jobs in Michigan?

NAFTA. Personally I'd rather have factories and unions and products produced in the USA than continue as we have been. Moosehead {ME}, Surefit {PA}, Carrier{IN}. Loss of manufacturing jobs. It all adds up.

Crash-bundled loans that were based on prior mortgage underwriting standards. Fine to bundle when they were good loans. Severe disconnect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

Honestly, it is smart to take advantage of the tax code, and most smart business people do. Mitt Romney certainly did. I am not privy to the tax dealings of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates but I would be surprised if they paid more than they were legally required to do.

It is, however, pretty tone deaf to boast about not paying taxes when your base is people who are struggling in a shitty economy. It is ... shall we say ... a touch arrogant. However, since it doesn't seem to hurt him with his base, I guess he is onto something.

I don't know the Gates or Buffet tax situation, but they give A LOT to charity. Which Trump does not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

and considering that most of his supporters don't have a college education, well, he probably thinks his supporters are stupid, too, although, he barely has an education himself since his father pulled strings to get him from a community college to Wharton.

Also, I'm pretty sure he has tax accountants doing his taxes, not him. So, his tax accountants may be smart, but he's not.

Most of her's don't have a college education as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

and considering that most of his supporters don't have a college education, well, he probably thinks his supporters are stupid, too, although, he barely has an education himself since his father pulled strings to get him from a community college to Wharton.

Also, I'm pretty sure he has tax accountants doing his taxes, not him. So, his tax accountants may be smart, but he's not.

Most of her's don't have a college education as well.

Irony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

Aka, they will laugh their assess off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

Trump is a great thinker. I can't remember any other politician approach this issue with this outside of the box thinking. They will be starting to pay their fair share when he gets into the office.

This is an issue that others, including Obama, have complained about. But because our only real leverage is threatening to walk away from our allies, until now we couldn't do anything about it. Because Trump acts like he is willing to abandon allies and go against the Geneva Convention, he has more leverage. But abandoning allies isn't really to our benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump started strong with his trade war talk. That's his strong suit and there's probably some validity in what he says there. After that, he fell apart. His discussion on NATO is especially disturbing.

His discussion on NATO really hit a home with me. It's time to re-evaluate all these Cold War relics and have our junior "partners" start funding at least to their treat obligations. It would be great if they paid their fair share. The only obligation under article 5 is to provide what support each country deems appropriate up to and including military aid. It does not say each country must respond with military force.

It would be great if Trump paid his fair share in federal taxes. I pay about 25%. Maybe if he and rich people like him paid their fair share, we'd have more money to spend on veterans and other services. Maybe our debt wouldn't be so high. Does he ever think about that?

He said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart. Guess that makes us stupid

Honestly, it is smart to take advantage of the tax code, and most smart business people do. Mitt Romney certainly did. I am not privy to the tax dealings of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates but I would be surprised if they paid more than they were legally required to do.

It is, however, pretty tone deaf to boast about not paying taxes when your base is people who are struggling in a shitty economy. It is ... shall we say ... a touch arrogant. However, since it doesn't seem to hurt him with his base, I guess he is onto something.

I don't know the Gates or Buffet tax situation, but they give A LOT to charity. Which Trump does not do.

Oh, I know that, and it no doubt affects their taxes too. I'm just saying that I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Trump is despicable because he doesn't pay taxes. Most people in his situation would not. There are plenty of other reasons he is despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was well rehearsed, prepared, polished. It was a show. However, Trump was sincere and I am curious about NATO funding as well as NATO anti-terror.

Trump was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/

Localities and crime. Is NYC safer than pre-Guiliani days? Yes. Have we let down our cities ? Yes. No one deserves to live in these conditions in Chicago. So why did many AA's move to cities in the North like Detroit and Chicago? Jobs.

Trump was too polite. Ford is moving production of specific vehicles to Mexico - 2800 jobs but says those 2800 jobs will be replaced with other jobs in Michigan. Now why not have the 2800 jobs + 2800 NEW jobs in Michigan?

NAFTA. Personally I'd rather have factories and unions and products produced in the USA than continue as we have been. Moosehead {ME}, Surefit {PA}, Carrier{IN}. Loss of manufacturing jobs. It all adds up.

Crash-bundled loans that were based on prior mortgage underwriting standards. Fine to bundle when they were good loans. Severe disconnect.

What I don't understand is how he plans to force businesses to have jobs in this country and why he suddenly thinks that's a good idea. I thought business people were all about bottom line and free trade and job creation. He certainly has enough enterprises overseas. Why is he against regulation businesses to make sure they have fair practices, but for forcing businesses to stay in this country if they can perform better overseas? Why, if he feels so strongly about this, has he not made it a practice in his own dealings? If it's such an important issue, and he makes so much money, he could afford the financial hit he would take by doing so -- he would still make money hand over fist, just not quite as much. Why hasn't he been a leader on this important issue?