Trump

[1972Shocker]

The Kobayashi Maru is in fact a test of character revealed in the choices each man makes -- and does not make.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You know what painful, that there are people like u who support and defend HRC.

You are leading the way to the cesspool.

She broke the LAW AND VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT, she OBSTRUCTED FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS, and destroyed evidence, and violate federal FOIA LAWS. So your defense off Hillary is laughable, don't fall of your holier than thou horse.

Once again, you are arguing that if someone has done enough bad things (Hillary has, I agree) then it is justifiable to lie about them.

This is not how integrity works.

Hillary is a horrible person who doesn't deserve a single vote for any position of authority. That in no way makes it ok to lie about her, and I will defend anyone against lies, even her.

THAT is how integrity works.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Put another way... the espionage act, federal investigations, destroyed evidence, etc are all IRRELEVANT to the specific thing I'm defending her for. For you to even bring them up shows that you consider it ok to lie about someone once they have reached a certain level of evil. That is the only reason to bring up those totally unrelated items.

This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't a right vs left issue. Lying is wrong. Lying about evil people... still wrong.

[Play Angry]

Yea, I don't get why folks get pissed when they can't make false arguments against Hillary. She provides plenty of ammunition with stuff that can be confirmed.

One of my family members still forwards emails arguing President Obama is both a muslim and born in Kenya. Argue either point, and he will label his confronter as a pro-choice liberal who roots for our country's demise.

Checkmate.

[jdshock]

Put another way... the espionage act, federal investigations, destroyed evidence, etc are all IRRELEVANT to the specific thing I'm defending her for. For you to even bring them up shows that you consider it ok to lie about someone once they have reached a certain level of evil. That is the only reason to bring up those totally unrelated items.

This isn't a partisan issue. This isn't a right vs left issue. Lying is wrong. Lying about evil people... still wrong.

On top of that, it just provides easy ammunition for the other side. Clinton supporters can just say "half of your criticisms are just blatant lies" without ever responding to the meaningful complaints.

[Cdizzle]

An interesting opinion piece on the matter. The principle discussed applies universally. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/op...rump.html?_r=0

[im4wsu]

I have to whole-heartedly agree with this. But this has been coming for sometime now. Perhaps the more pressing issue or questions is have we passed the point of no return as a country and if so where are we heading?

It was clearly the case in 2008 and 2012 and perhaps many times before that.

[Play Angry]

An interesting opinion piece on the matter. The principle discussed applies universally. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/op...rump.html?_r=0

A good article, thanks for sharing.

[Aargh]

I've figured out Trump's business model. Take a couple of known "facts".

1) He filed a tax return showing $900,000,000 in losses.
2) He claimed in the debate that it was mostly depreciation
3) There are over 1,000 active lawsuits against him over his payment methods.

Let's just take a single transaction. Let's say Trump gets a bill for $1,000,000 for one of his projects. Using accelerated depreciation he probably gets to take an expense of around $250,000 - $300,000 in the first year. Then he doesn't pay the bill. Now he gets his quarter million dollar tax deduction, but he hasn't paid a penny for it.

Eventually the case makes its way through the courts and Trump actually has to pay some money out of pocket. By then he's probably taken the entire million in tax deductions and saved enough on taxes to nearly pay the settlement amount. He will have to claim income for the difference between the original bill and the settlement amount, but by then he's got the same thing working thousands of times from other projects.

Not paying your bills and spending other people's money is one of the most effective business models if you can pull it off.

[ShockingButTrue]

You know what painful, that there are people like u who support and defend HRC.

You are leading the way to the cesspool.

She broke the LAW AND VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT, she OBSTRUCTED FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS, and destroyed evidence, and violate federal FOIA LAWS. So your defense off Hillary is laughable, don't fall of your holier than thou horse.

At the behest of the Community Organizer in Chief? All signs point in that direction. Ray Charles could see it.

It's a good thing they've well-researched political "Buzzwords" to balance things out. Damn the consequences.

[Kung Wu]

I've figured out Trump's business model. Take a couple of known "facts".

1) He filed a tax return showing $900,000,000 in losses.
2) He claimed in the debate that it was mostly depreciation
3) There are over 1,000 active lawsuits against him over his payment methods.

I thought it was a loss carried forward from 1995 (and therefore expired last year though this is irrelevant)?

[proshox]

Good question. A friend on FB made an interesting observation, which made me think. He said it seemed to be that the political spectrum used to be more of a single bell curve, with the center of the bell being those that are politically moderate. He thinks now that we have become a double bell curve, with a "moderate" group within each ideological hump, but those are both away from the moderate center. His thinking, I believe, was that this explains the polarization, but also means that the outliers of each end are closer to the "norm" of their side. Not sure whether I totally agree with that, but it was an interesting way to put things.

*this

An economist I read a decade or so back predicted this problem. In his mind the less people interacted in the real world the less likely they were to understand other's point of view. You no longer interact with the factory worker, the doctor, the lawyer, the accountant, the manager in situations were politeness matters (Book club or bake off). Unfortunately, these are the situations were you might hear why a teacher thinks funding is important and just a minute later you might hear the unintended negative consequence of a new mandate.

Instead people go to forums with like minded individuals. In those forums they will inevitably be pulled towards the group consensus or ostracized out. After a while you can't begin to understand why people see an issue in a different light.

Bottom line / we are screwed!

[SB Shock]

*this

An economist I read a decade or so back predicted this problem. In his mind the less people interacted in the real world the less likely they were to understand other's point of view. You no longer interact with the factory worker, the doctor, the lawyer, the accountant, the manager in situations were politeness matters (Book club or bake off). Unfortunately, these are the situations were you might hear why a teacher thinks funding is important and just a minute later you might hear the unintended negative consequence of a new mandate.

Instead people go to forums with like minded individuals. In those forums they will inevitably be pulled towards the group consensus or ostracized out. After a while you can't begin to understand why people see an issue in a different light.

Bottom line / we are screwed!

I was at a conference earlier this fall - they had a statistic they threw out: only 20% of the population regularly attend church weekly. If this is true, then you could hypothesize you have now lost a place where the "factory worker, the doctor, the lawyer, the accountant, the manager" used to interact on a weekly basis, but don't.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

On top of that, it just provides easy ammunition for the other side. Clinton supporters can just say "half of your criticisms are just blatant lies" without ever responding to the meaningful complaints.

This x1000

[WuShock16]

I was at a conference earlier this fall - they had a statistic they threw out: only 20% of the population regularly attend church weekly. If this is true, then you could hypothesize you have now lost a place where the "factory worker, the doctor, the lawyer, the accountant, the manager" used to interact on a weekly basis, but don't.

Very valid observation!

And even if more people went to church, socioeconomic factors can dictate where someone goes to church. The church I attend now was a church I attended as a little kid before my family moved to a different part of Wichita. My dad, who was a blue-collar worker, was not raised to be much of a churchgoer anyway and never fit in at this church because this church had a lot of white-collar professionals. Dad felt like he was looked down upon because he wasn't college educated and didn't wear a suit to church every week. When my parents started attending another church, Dad liked it much better and felt like he could be more involved because it was more of a neighborhood church with other middle-class, blue-collar types.