President Donald J. Trump

[SciFiAuthor]

The 4chan kid brigade. Meh.

I'm not the kid brigade. What is the logic behind attacking Trump over using the same tax loopholes as Hillary? Explain it to me and persuade me.

[SciFiAuthor]

A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/a-neuroscientist-explains-what-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains/

That's called unethical in the medical field. Do not color your research with your personal politics. Ever.

[Value Of Pi]

That's called unethical in the medical field. Do not color your research with politics. Ever.

I don't think any of the issues discussed in the article apply exclusively to Trump or any part of the political spectrum. I doubt the doctor believes that or would say that. Trump is a very topical example, however. People are trying to understand what's happening in voters' minds.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't think any of the issues discussed in the article apply exclusively to Trump or any part of the political spectrum. I doubt the doctor believes that or woukd say that. Trump is a very topical example, however. People are trying to understand what's happening in voters' minds.

It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit. Has the author produced an actual paper I can read on arXiv or something that actually analyzes and backs up (which you hate to do) these assertions? I'd like to read it if so. And then I'll see how it did in peer review and report back. Politicizing science and form-fitting it to whatever you politically believe is pseudoscience. Fringe. Think almost Hoagland and at worse Dr. Mengele and the NAZI's. That kind of shit has no place in the modern world. Quit buying into clickbait shit like this to support your personal politics. You're not stupid. Reality is better.

[analog kid]

I'm not the kid brigade. What is the logic behind attacking Trump over using the same tax loopholes as Hillary? Explain it to me and persuade me.

First, find a decent source for that, and one that shows the equivalence (read: not a blog). She paid
$3.6 million.6 million in taxes that year. Meanwhile all of her tax records are public, while Donnie's are a secret, and his message is basically, paying taxes is for stupid people. He sounds like Leona Helmsley.

[analog kid]

It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit.

Like that vaccines cause autism and climate change is a Chinese hoax?

[SciFiAuthor]

First, find a decent source for that, and one that shows the equivalence (read: not a blog). She paid
$3.6 million.6 million in taxes that year. Meanwhile all of her tax records are public, while Donnie's are a secret, and his message is basically, paying taxes is for stupid people. He sounds like Leona Helmsley.

Well, I can piss away time and find a source, but why do you need it? What? You don't think the Clinton's tax preparers didn't take advantage of the laws? You don't? I do. Explain what's wrong with using tax law to whatever advantage you can get out of it. Further, if you haven't ever directly used it, which I doubt, then if you've ever received a tax refund in your life justify accepting it.

[analog kid]

Well, I can piss away time and find a source, but why do you need it? What? You don't think the Clinton's tax preparers didn't take advantage of the laws? You don't? I do. Explain what's wrong with using tax law to whatever advantage you can get out of it. Further, if you haven't ever directly used it, which I doubt, then if you've ever received a tax refund in your life justify accepting it.

You've moved the goal post and you're argument in incoherent.

[SciFiAuthor]

Like that vaccines cause autism and climate change is a Chinese hoax?

Ask me in 20 years when the science is actually in and not politicized as far as the vaccines, but be aware that by not vaccinating you'll kill people. Be goddamned sure your right, rather than just paranoid.

[analog kid]

Ask me in 20 years when the science is actually in and not politicized as far as the vaccines, but be aware that by not vaccinating you'll kill people. Be goddamned sure your right, rather than just paranoid.

??

[Value Of Pi]

It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit. Has the author produced an actual paper I can read on arXiv or something that actually analyzes and backs up (which you hate to do) these assertions? I'd like to read it if so. And then I'll see how it did in peer review and report back. Politicizing science and form-fitting it to whatever you politically believe is pseudoscience. Fringe. Think almost Hoagland and at worse Dr. Mengele and the NAZI's. That kind of shit has no place in the modern world. Quit buying into clickbait shit like this to support your personal politics. You're not stupid. Reality is better.

I think you're making too big a deal over a doctor talking about certain psychological factors that might (might) be affecting voters. He's not concluding that any or all of them are the explanation for that behavior. He is talking about some possibilities. Also, it's not like he's trying to give anyone medical advice. I don't see the problem you see.

[136 or 142]

Ask me in 20 years when the science is actually in and not politicized as far as the vaccines, but be aware that by not vaccinating you'll kill people. Be goddamned sure your right, rather than just paranoid.

You continually defend Trump, while lying that you're neutral, and you don't even know some of the basic paranoid conspiratorial claims that he's made.

It was Trump himself who claimed that vaccines cause autism, and he may even have donated a small amount of money to one of the groups pushing these claims.

I would have thought you would have realized that's what the comment was about because it also referenced his tweet claiming that the Chinese were behind the "global warming fraud", which Hillary Clinton mentioned in the debate and that Trump responded by lying that he never sent any such tweet.

[136 or 142]

It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit. Has the author produced an actual paper I can read on arXiv or something that actually analyzes and backs up (which you hate to do) these assertions? I'd like to read it if so. And then I'll see how it did in peer review and report back. Politicizing science and form-fitting it to whatever you politically believe is pseudoscience. Fringe. Think almost Hoagland and at worse Dr. Mengele and the NAZI's. That kind of shit has no place in the modern world. Quit buying into clickbait shit like this to support your personal politics. You're not stupid. Reality is better.

Whatever, I found this story initially in my facebook feed from a person I'm 'friends' with on Facebook (we actually don't really like each other) who is an actual PhD scientist and a former research scientist.  He's now a fairly wealthy businessman, not as wealthy as Trump claims to be, but possibly almost as wealthy as Trump actually is.   I think he knows a lot more than you do as to what does and does not constitutes pseudo-scientific bullshit.

[Yorkshire pud]

Trump responded by lying that he never sent any such tweet.

He seems to be conducting almost all his campaign on twatter; so if he's forgotten any details then its not really surprising. He declares something as empirical fact and then denies he's said it when (yet again) it makes one of his lacky's get on their knees and suggest the Trumpster retract his latest batshit statement; He doesn't seem to take the hint unless its because he talks to himself because he has a good brain?

[136 or 142]

I'm not the kid brigade. What is the logic behind attacking Trump over using the same tax loopholes as Hillary? Explain it to me and persuade me.

I don't know if the claim against Hillary Clinton is true or not, but, unlike Trump, Clinton's tax returns are public going back almost 40 years, so it will be easily verified one way or the other.  If it is true, it's almost certain that she applied a capital loss against a capital gain.

No credible person is claiming that what Trump did is illegal. The issue is twofold:
1.The amount and the length of time that he was allowed to offset his income against his losses demonstrate to many people (including me) a clear bias of the tax code in favor of the wealthy.  To be able to write off $900m+ in losses is obscene.

2.He claims that these are the sorts of abuses that he wants to get elected President in order to change, yet, when addressing this situation he doesn't say that but instead says "Paying no (income) taxes makes me smart." 

Based on this alone, it should be readily apparent to anybody with a working brain that his concern for the 'little guy' is all bullshit and that he most likely wants to be President to further enrich himself.  His refusal to place his businesses in a blind trust or to sell them off to non involved third parties, but to instead sell (or give) them to his children, and the claims that he has large loans with Russian and/or Chinese government owned banks tied together with his sympathetic comments about Putin and the Chinese leaders, also suggest he wants to be President solely in order to further enrich himself.

[136 or 142]

Very unlikely a crime.  For the newspaper would very likely fall under 'fair use.'  For the leaker, although Trump doesn't hold any elected office, they could probably claim whistleblower protections.

Donald Trump Can’t Shut Down New York Times Tax Leak Showing He Lost Nearly $1 Billion in 1995

Donald J. Trump’s threat to sue the New York Times for its report about his leaked 1995 state tax returns showing he lost nearly $1 billion is as predictable as it is laughable. 
Trump’s lawyer pledged “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action” against the Times, saying the Oct. 1 story was “illegal” because Trump did not authorize the release of his confidential tax returns.
What is the “appropriate” legal action?  None. 
Even my journalism students in my entry-level media law class know that the First Amendment provides an absolute legal shield to journalists who are sued for publishing lawfully obtained documents that are a matter of public concern.

The article also reports that the New York Times at least could not be criminally prosecuted.

"Which takes us back to Bartnicki, where the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not punish a radio journalist for airing an illegally taped phone call because the journalist received the tape from a third-party and the tape was a matter of public concern. “We think it clear that …that a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from [a journalist’s] speech about a matter of public concern.”"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/02/donald-j-trump-can-t-shut-down-new-york-times-tax-story.html

[136 or 142]

PollingReport.com @pollreport
Overall impression of Donald Trump:
Favorable 34%
Unfavorable 64%
(ABC/Washington Post Poll, 9/28-30)
Details: http://j.mp/1d4HZv9

Overall impression of Hillary Clinton:
Favorable 45%
Unfavorable 53%
(ABC/Washington Post Poll, 9/28-30)
Details: http://j.mp/1jdJC69

Just one poll, but the favorable/unfavorable gap between the two is widening. A 5% increase in Trump's unfavorables from their last poll approximately one week ago and a 4% increase in Hillary Clinton's favorables.

[136 or 142]

Trump rattles Hillary.

[CornyCrow]

I don't know if the claim against Hillary Clinton is true or not, but, unlike Trump, Clinton's tax returns are public going back almost 40 years, so it will be easily verified one way or the other.  If it is true, it's almost certain that she applied a capital loss against a capital gain.

No credible person is claiming that what Trump did is illegal. The issue is twofold:
1.The amount and the length of time that he was allowed to offset his income against his losses demonstrate to many people (including me) a clear bias of the tax code in favor of the wealthy.  To be able to write off $900m+ in losses is obscene.

2.He claims that these are the sorts of abuses that he wants to get elected President in order to change, yet, when addressing this situation he doesn't say that but instead says "Paying no (income) taxes makes me smart." 

Based on this alone, it should be readily apparent to anybody with a working brain that his concern for the 'little guy' is all bullshit and that he most likely wants to be President to further enrich himself.  His refusal to place his businesses in a blind trust or to sell them off to non involved third parties, but to instead sell (or give) them to his children, and the claims that he has large loans with Russian and/or Chinese government owned banks tied together with his sympathetic comments about Putin and the Chinese leaders, also suggest he wants to be President solely in order to further enrich himself.

Thank you.  This is so well said.

There was an interview that queried one of the kids on the conflict of interests, with Trump being president and they controlling the business.  The son said 'So, we'll just not discuss anything that could influence the business' - or something similar to that.

They are so full of bs and obviously have nothing but contempt for their followers.  People are so entrenched now that they are blinded and are not seeing clearly. 

[136 or 142]

More evidence Trump is deranged. What 'normal' father would make a comparison like this with his daughter?

Trump Demeaned Women While Taping Reality Show

October 3, 2016By Taegan Goddard0 Comments
The AP reports Donald Trump “repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language” on his reality television show, “The Apprentice.”

The staffers and contestants agreed to recount their experiences as Trump’s behavior toward women has become a core issue in the presidential campaign. Interviewed separately, they gave concurring accounts of inappropriate conduct on the set.

Eight former crew members recalled that he repeatedly made lewd comments about a camerawoman he said had a nice rear, comparing her beauty to that of his daughter, Ivanka.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2778a6ab72ea49558445337865289508/ap-how-trumps-apprentice-moved-capitalism-sexism

Derangement: a lack of appreciation of social norms, combined with a lack of appreciation of why society considers social norms to be important.

[michio]

Ask me in 20 years when the science is actually in and not politicized as far as the vaccines, but be aware that by not vaccinating you'll kill people. Be goddamned sure your right, rather than just paranoid.

"When the science is in."  They like to say the same about climate change/global warming. If you wait twenty years for the "science to be in" they'll add on another twenty years and move the goalposts further down the field. When huge issues take the money and coordination of governments to deal with them, as do mass vaccinations and global climate change, politics are inextricably going to be involved. This fact should not be permitted to distract from the importance of the issues nor should it be allowed to trivialize them.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/trumps-shady-charity-foundation-gave-10000-to-jenny-mccarthys-quack-anti-vaxx-campaign/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/09/15/the-long-sordid-antivaccine-history-of-donald-trump/

[GuerrillaUnReal]

[RealCool Daddio]

4chan? Really? I thought you were sharper than that.

Meanwhile, over at FiveThirtyEight, Trump's numbers have been tanking since "winning" the debate:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#odds

[GuerrillaUnReal]

4chan? Really? I thought you were sharper than that.

Meanwhile, over at FiveThirtyEight, Trump's numbers have been tanking since "winning" the debate:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#odds

Nate Silver? Really? I thought you were sharper than that.

Read his Twitter and then get back to me.

[Yorkshire pud]

If for no other reason, this asshole isn't fit to be POTUS; it's this one. His incredible and idiotic ignorance is so dangerous, he shouldn't be allowed out without supervision.

[Yorkshire pud]

Exactly what is it are you trying to prove? That Trump can convince enough stupid people he's fit to be President?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Exactly what is it are you trying to prove? That Trump can convince enough stupid people he's fit to be President?

It's a graph, you look at it, it provides information.

As you can see from the graph, the bottom segment of society seems to support Hillary by a slight margin. But you were busy pushing a meme.

[RealCool Daddio]

Nate Silver? Really? I thought you were sharper than that.

Read his Twitter and then get back to me.

What exactly does his Twitter account have to do with poll results?

[RealCool Daddio]

It's a graph, you look at it, it provides information.

As you can see from the graph, the bottom segment of society seems to support Hillary by a slight margin. But you were busy pushing a meme.

No, the graph is just something some 4chan dweeb knocked off on a lazy Sunday.  No sources, no methodology, just random bullshit. 

[Yorkshire pud]

It's a graph, you look at it, it provides information.

As you can see from the graph, the bottom segment of society seems to support Hillary by a slight margin. But you were busy pushing a meme.

Is it a graph compiled by such as a recognised independent polling company?


Incidentally are you okay with his implied but catastrophically wrong causal link between vaccines and Autism?