What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Donald Trump for President thread (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Trump is giving this HUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE economic speech today and he's going to propose cutting taxes.  Even his most ardent supporters at the conservative Tax Foundation is saying it'll cost 3 trillion dollars (based on their dynamic scoring, so it's probably higher than that all things considered).  Now granted this is down from the 10 trillion estimate from his first proposal, but I guess deficits/debt don't matter to conservatives anymore.

Trump last year announced a series of tax cuts -- including reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent -- that came with a high price tag. Washington-area policy analysts, including the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, said the plan would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $10 trillion in revenue over a decade. This summer, Trump’s aides took that relatively detailed tax plan off the campaign’s website while a group of economic advisers suggested ways to trim its cost.

“Originally, we were a $10 trillion cost; now with revisions and dynamic scoring, the Tax Foundation has it down to $3 trillion,” said economist Stephen Moore, one of Trump’s advisers, in an interview Wednesday.
  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-to-tout-tax-plan-s-growth-benefits-amid-questions-of-cost

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Trump is giving this HUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE economic speech today and he's going to propose cutting taxes.  Even his most ardent supporters at the conservative Tax Foundation is saying it'll cost 3 trillion dollars (based on their dynamic scoring, so it's probably higher than that all things considered).  Now granted this is down from the 10 trillion estimate from his first proposal, but I guess deficits/debt don't matter to conservatives anymore.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-to-tout-tax-plan-s-growth-benefits-amid-questions-of-cost
Trump has proposed cutting the tax rates for individuals across the board, taking the top tax rate to 33 percent -- down from 39.6 percent currently. In addition to cutting the 35 percent tax rate to 15 percent for major corporations, he’d institute a 15 percent tax rate for income from partnerships and limited liability companies -- so-called pass-through businesses. Those businesses aren’t taxed on their earnings; instead, they pass the profit through to their owners, who pay at their individual income-tax rates.
Maybe Trump will be worth $10 billion someday.

 
So Trump is giving this HUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE economic speech today and he's going to propose cutting taxes.  Even his most ardent supporters at the conservative Tax Foundation is saying it'll cost 3 trillion dollars (based on their dynamic scoring, so it's probably higher than that all things considered).  Now granted this is down from the 10 trillion estimate from his first proposal, but I guess deficits/debt don't matter to conservatives anymore.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-to-tout-tax-plan-s-growth-benefits-amid-questions-of-cost
2 months for everyone to get out of the market. It's going to get ugly when the King of Debt wins.

 
So Trump is giving this HUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE economic speech today and he's going to propose cutting taxes.  Even his most ardent supporters at the conservative Tax Foundation is saying it'll cost 3 trillion dollars (based on their dynamic scoring, so it's probably higher than that all things considered).  Now granted this is down from the 10 trillion estimate from his first proposal, but I guess deficits/debt don't matter to conservatives anymore.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-to-tout-tax-plan-s-growth-benefits-amid-questions-of-cost
"Revised Trump tax plan reduces deficits by $7 trillion"

 
Sammy3469 said:
So Trump is giving this HUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEE economic speech today and he's going to propose cutting taxes.  Even his most ardent supporters at the conservative Tax Foundation is saying it'll cost 3 trillion dollars (based on their dynamic scoring, so it's probably higher than that all things considered).  Now granted this is down from the 10 trillion estimate from his first proposal, but I guess deficits/debt don't matter to conservatives anymore.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-to-tout-tax-plan-s-growth-benefits-amid-questions-of-cost
Deficits only matter to Republicans when they aren't the ones running them.

 
3C's said:
I've already started...
I do feel Hillary will be better for the economy. but I'm not selling my Apple, Amazon, Tesla, alphabet, and 20 other stocks because of who wins. 

When I'm selling its because I think its that time just based on the stock financials. 

 
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150449295541/when-reality-turned-inside-out

Do you remember way—-way—-way—back in July, when the public thought Trump was the candidate they couldn’t trust with the nuclear arsenal? That was before we realized he could moderate his personality on command, as he is doing now. We’re about to enter our fifth consecutive week of Trump doing more outreach than outrage.

It turns out that Trump’s base personality is “winning.” Everything else he does is designed to get that result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was. He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is. 

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be frail, medicated, and probably duplicitous about her health. We also hear reports that she’s a drinker with a bad temper. Suddenly, Clinton looks like the unstable personality in this race. Who do you want controlling the nuclear arsenal now?

You probably thought Trump was the bigot in this contest, until Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” That’s the point at which observers started to see a pattern. Trump has been consistently supportive of American citizens of all types – with the exception of the press and his political opponents. The main targets of Trump’s rhetoric are the nations that compete against us. In stark contrast, Clinton turned her hate on American citizens. That’s the real kind of hate. Trump is more about keeping America safe and competing effectively in the world. That is literally the job of president.

Trump was once the candidate that the LGBTQ community found easy to hate. Then it turned out that Trump is the loudest voice for protecting America against the anti-gay ideology that Clinton would increase in this country via immigration. At the GOP convention, Republicans stood and applauded Trump’s full-throated support of the LGBTQ community. While Clinton was talking about a better society, Trump was transforming the Republican Party into one. (Yes, I know there is more to do.)

You might remember a few months ago when Clinton had lots of policy details and Trump had few. Clinton still holds the lead in the number of bullet-points-per-policy, but while she rests, Trump has been rolling out policy details on one topic after another. Perception-wise, the optics of “who has policy details” has flipped. (Reality isn’t important in this context.)

Do you remember over a year ago, when Trump first entered the race? Social media relentlessly insulted his physical appearance. They mocked his orange hair and his orange skin. They called him a clown. They called him a Cheeto. It was brutal.

But over time, Trump’s haircut improved. He softened the color to something more blonde than orange And his fake tan and TV makeup improved too. Today, if you ask a voter to name the candidate for president who “looks bad,” the answer would probably be Clinton, primarily because of her recent health issues. In our minds, Clinton went from being a stylish and energetic personality to a hospice patient dressed like a North Korean dictator at a rave.

Not long ago, you would have said Clinton was the strongest candidate for protecting citizens who need the help of social programs. Then Trump unveiled his plan for childcare and senior care. You can debate the details, and the cost, but nearly everyone recognized the idea as a critical need for working class people.

In other words, the world is turning inside-out, right in front of our eyes. I summarized this surprising reversal in the most popular tweet I have ever created.

That’s how a Master Persuader does it. A year ago, I told you that Trump was bringing a flamethrower to a stick fight. His talent for persuasion is so strong that he has effectively flipped the script and rewired the brains of the people watching this show.

But I’ll bet you still think Trump is “thin-skinned,” primarily because Clinton’s team has done a great job of branding him that way. The label sticks because Trump has a pattern of going on offense whenever he is attacked. But let me give you another framework to see this same set of facts. Specifically, I’m going to tell you how Master Persuaders convert embarrassment into energy. It’s a learned skill.

I often talk about the benefits I got from taking the Dale Carnegie course. One of the skills you learn in that class is how to convert your anxiousness about public speaking into excitement and positive energy. I personally observed the Dale Carnegie course turning a few dozen introverts into people who were enthusiastic about speaking in front of a crowd. It was astonishing.

Part of the Dale Carnegie process involved each student doing something embarrassing in front of the class just to get used to the feeling, and to know you could survive it. It is one of the best skills you can learn because our egos tend to hold us back. We fear embarrassment so we don’t risk it. That limits our potential.

Now think back to 2011, at the Correspondent’s Dinner, in which President Obama mocked Donald Trump in front of the world – while Trump sat in the audience, stone-faced. The popular reporting was that Trump was humiliated by the event. But Master Persuaders don’t process humiliation the same way as others. They convert it to energy, the same way Dale Carnegie students learn to convert anxiousness to excitement. It’s a learned skill. And it is literally the opposite of having a thin skin. It only looks the same because of confirmation bias.

How do I know Trump has mastered the skill of converting humiliation into energy? The signs are all there. For example…

Trump has entered one high-risk business after another, guaranteeing that he would experience a large number of setbacks, failures, and humiliations. People don’t run toward humiliation unless they know they can convert that negative energy to fuel. When you see someone succeed across multiple unrelated fields, that’s often a sign of a Master Persuader who feeds on both success and failure. You are watching Trump do exactly that, right in front of your eyes. He has converted every “gaffe” into news coverage. He eats bad news and converts it into fuel.

Many of you have watched me do the same thing. You’ve watched as I jumped fields from corporate America to cartooning. Then I became an author of business-related books. I opened two restaurants that didn’t work out. I tried lots of stuff that failed miserably. Now I’m talking about the presidential election. What do all of those things have in common?

I risked public humiliation in each case. 

And in each case, lots of people told me “Keep your day job.” On a typical day, dozens of strangers insult my body, my personality, my brain, my integrity, and lots more. Like Trump, I consume it as fuel. And it is a learned skill.

You might have noticed that both Trump and I are quick to attack anyone who attacks us. Observers tell me I shouldn’t do that, because it makes me appear thin-skinned. Observers tell Trump the same thing. But observers are missing one important thing: We use the critics to refuel

If you were an alien from another planet, and you observed a lion killing a gazelle, you might think that lion was angry at its prey. You might think the lion was insulted that the gazelle was using its watering hole. What did the gazelle do to deserve that treatment? Is the lion being thin-skinned?

Trust me when I tell you that sometimes the lion is just eating.

 
I would like to commend the mods for taking action on a recent thread. It didn't bother me but it is refreshing to see consistency applied. Well done.

 
Someone mentioned Trump ads, I guess he was listening:

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/ridiculous-super-trump-billboard-times-square-leaps-infamy-single-bound-173512

The ad is intended to show off Trump's "stamina" and contrast the candidate with opponent Hillary Clinton's recent health issues, according to filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who made the animated video.
Dr. Robert Shillman of San Diego paid for the board, says the Post. "When I was a kid, Superman was my idol because he stood for truth, justice and the American way, just like Donald Trump," Shillman said in a statement.
The same ad will appear next week on a board along the I-4 corridor in central Florida. 
 
:lmao:

As Superman would say:

"538"

 
timschochet said:
Hillary should not be attacking Trump supporters; its a dumb move politically. But we can. 
In some political pundit circles, the moment when a candidate speaks the truth to their own detriment is referred to as a "Kinsley gaffe".  It's named after pundit Michael Kinsley, who liked to point out moments when politicians accidentally told the truth.

This basket of deplorables thing is a Kinsley gaffe.  There's a bunch of Trump voter demographics info that supports the basket of deplorables claim, and the data that doesn't support it says the basket isn't big enough.  So here we have a moment where Hillary says she is making a gross generalization but said something that is absolutely true.  Like you said, a dumb move politically, but IMO important to remember she was right when she said it.  

 
I wasn't sure which of the political threads to put this in, I'm not on either team. I've been watching more political programming than I did before (none) and I found one of my favorite new evening comedies. Whenever Don Lemon has this guy Andy Dean on I literally laugh out loud at least once or twice because of some of the things he says or the reactions to him from the D's or even the other R's on the panel for that topic.  Anyone else watch this? Is this guy for real? 

 
I wasn't sure which of the political threads to put this in, I'm not on either team. I've been watching more political programming than I did before (none) and I found one of my favorite new evening comedies. Whenever Don Lemon has this guy Andy Dean on I literally laugh out loud at least once or twice because of some of the things he says or the reactions to him from the D's or even the other R's on the panel for that topic.  Anyone else watch this? Is this guy for real? 
Don Lemon produces more late-night political laughs than any of the late-night comedy shows right now.  My favorites are Andy Dean and Betsy McCaughey.  Kayleigh McEnany is pretty entertaining, too - she has moments where she gives away that she knows this is all a bunch of Forensics Club bull#### and is willing to keep doing the character for the paycheck.  

Watching Lemon and Van Jones try to keep their composure as all these privileged white folk constantly cry victim is compelling TV.  

 
And on cue,  the racism card again.   hold on while I fetch my white garb from the trunk.
Ever read the comments on a breitbart article? Just vile. 

There's a pretty convincing set of survey data on Trump supporters' self-reported perspectives that make it clear he's the home for racists. 

I know honest people that support him in spite of some of his supporters' racism. Only dishonest people actually try to claim that a big chunk of his supporters aren't racist.

 
Ever read the comments on a breitbart article? Just vile. 

There's a pretty convincing set of survey data on Trump supporters' self-reported perspectives that make it clear he's the home for racists. 

I know honest people that support him in spite of some of his supporters' racism. Only dishonest people actually try to claim that a big chunk of his supporters aren't racist.
Only dishonest people actually try to claim a big chunk of Hillary's supporters aren't sociopaths that enjoy ruining the lives of others while using social justice as an excuse to justify their psychopath behavior.

 
Ever read the comments on a breitbart article? Just vile. 

There's a pretty convincing set of survey data on Trump supporters' self-reported perspectives that make it clear he's the home for racists. 

I know honest people that support him in spite of some of his supporters' racism. Only dishonest people actually try to claim that a big chunk of his supporters aren't racist.
It's dishonest to say that a big chunk of his supporters are racist, it's more accurate that a big chunk of the racist population support Trump.  We all understand that, it sucks, but that's the way it is.  Just like a large chunk of the loser/poor/welfare recipient population are illary supporters, but not necessarily a big chunk of her supporters.

 
It's dishonest to say that a big chunk of his supporters are racist, it's more accurate that a big chunk of the racist population support Trump.  We all understand that, it sucks, but that's the way it is.  Just like a large chunk of the loser/poor/welfare recipient population are illary supporters, but not necessarily a big chunk of her supporters.
"Lots of racists are voting for and have been energized by your candidate"

"Lots of poor people are voting for your candidate."

Those are ... not the same.

 
It's dishonest to say that a big chunk of his supporters are racist, it's more accurate that a big chunk of the racist population support Trump.  We all understand that, it sucks, but that's the way it is.  Just like a large chunk of the loser/poor/welfare recipient population are illary supporters, but not necessarily a big chunk of her supporters.
Only the difference is that there is literally a big chunk of his supporters that are racist. Survey results have been printed in the media non-stop since Hillary's comment in an effort to fact-check her. I'll let you use some google on your own, but no matter how you slice it a lot of his supporters certainly are deplorable. Maybe not half, but plenty enough that it makes virtually ever real world supporter of his that I know deeply uncomfortable.

 
You left out "losers" and "welfare leeches" 
Loser is subjective  For example I think all racists are losers.  I take it you don't?

I considered welfare recipients to be a subset of poor. But regardless I don't really see that as being the same as being supported by and energizing racist people and organizations.  I take it you do?

 
Loser is subjective  For example I think all racists are losers.  I take it you don't?

I considered welfare recipients to be a subset of poor. But regardless I don't really see that as being the same as being supported by and energizing racist people and organizations.  I take it you do?
I do, that's an area both campaigns have serious crossover, the loser category.  Hillary's camp just has a much larger loser contingent, the type that constantly want a handout etc.

The small set of racist Trump supporters are most likely dwarfed by the amount of leeches on this nation that support illary.  Would you agree?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top