U.S. Elections: Is Keeping The SC Worth Risking A Dictatorship?

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I guess that's feasible, though it seems like they're also doing better than most of the nation is. 

They are? I'm not too sure about that:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=7xo2

Also,

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-14/ohio-poll

Quote

The survey shows a strong majority of likely Ohio voters, 57 percent, are skeptical of trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement that was backed by Clinton's husband when he was president and that Trump has used to his political advantage. One in five say such deals help increase exports and employment, and 23 percent aren’t sure. More than four in 10 Clinton supporters see NAFTA as a bad deal, compared to seven in 10 Trump loyalists.

Of course, I'm not defending Trump or his idiotic trade policies. I will say, however, the failure to address some of these issues resulting from trade helped to create Trump.

I think a lot of the voters there, particularly the union and blue collar guys often identify with the Republican Party on cultural stuff. But, they aren't always really happy with the Republican Party on economic stuff. They will often will swing either way in voting.

Yes, certainly, white resentment often plays a part in the way they think. And Trump certainly taps into that, I think. But, I think his statements on trade strongly appeal to them too.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Yea, but it was based on a quote taken out of context.

Not really.

It's true that Trump probably meant to be sympathetic, but that doesn't change the fact that he was, instead, offensive. It's a bit like the ad about how being a mother is the most important job a woman can have. He meant that to be complimentary to women. But instead, it's offensive.

Trump is that guy who's stuck so far inside his own ignorance that he can't even see when he's offending people. We've all run into that guy: we may even have been him, from time to time. But that doesn't change the fact that what he said is still ignorant and offensive.

[Fez]

Ohio is following the path of Missouri, going from a major swing state to a somewhat reliable red state. It's a shame, since Ohio has so many electoral votes; but not every state drifts to the left. And if the tradeoff is Florida becoming a bit more blue, I'll take it.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Ohio is following the path of Missouri, going from a major swing state to a somewhat reliable red state. It's a shame, since Ohio has so many electoral votes; but not every state drifts to the left. And if the tradeoff is Florida becoming a bit more blue, I'll take it.

I think it's too early to write off Ohio: even if Trump wins it this year, there's no reason it won't revert to form in 2020 (Ted Cruz doesn't strike me as a particularly good fit for it). And while no Republican has ever won without it, Democrats can and have.

Defending Sherrod Brown in 2018 must be a priority for Democrats though.

[lokisnow]

12 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The thing that is most confusing to me about this election is why Ohio has gone so convincingly for Trump now, after being such a solid battleground state for so long. I don't get this at all. Is it because of Kasich? At this point it'd be shocking if Clinton won it. She doesn't need to win it, mind you - but it's amazing that it's so heavily pro-Trump (+5 to 10 in polling). 

No it's because Portman is running the best senate campaign in the country and he is having coattail effects of his ground game and ad presence elevating trump. It doesn't help that the dnc did a classic washerman Schultz move (after she was gone) and decided a few weeks of bad polls was reason to pull monetary support for Strickland, allowing Portman to basically run unopposed in the state which means it's good for all republicans running in that state.

[DireWolfSpirit]

The problem with Ohio is its full of filthy Buckeyes. 

 

[Guess who's back]

WikiLeaks anniversary stream is on. Leaks might come

 

[James Arryn]

Weirder; Ohio residents overwhelmingly thought Clinton won the debate...but followed it up with a mini-bump for Trump. If Ohio gives Trump the WH I will consign the entire state to perpetual Factory of Sadness...er...ness. Truly deserved.

[Inigima]

The state of Ohio is already one big dumpster fire.

[Mexal]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Not really.

It's true that Trump probably meant to be sympathetic, but that doesn't change the fact that he was, instead, offensive. It's a bit like the ad about how being a mother is the most important job a woman can have. He meant that to be complimentary to women. But instead, it's offensive.

Trump is that guy who's stuck so far inside his own ignorance that he can't even see when he's offending people. We've all run into that guy: we may even have been him, from time to time. But that doesn't change the fact that what he said is still ignorant and offensive.

If you read that single sentence, then sure. But the rest of the quote is sympathetic and he's talking about the necessity of helping vets, which is a very real, legitimate issue. It's similar to Clinton's basement dweller quote for millennials. When taken out of context, it sounds bad but when read with the entire quote, it's significantly less offensive. As I'm sure everyone here knows, I hate Trump, but this is one time when I think we're blowing shit out of proportion.

[DanteGabriel]

46 minutes ago, Mexal said:

If you read that single sentence, then sure. But the rest of the quote is sympathetic and he's talking about the necessity of helping vets, which is a very real, legitimate issue. It's similar to Clinton's basement dweller quote for millennials. When taken out of context, it sounds bad but when read with the entire quote, it's significantly less offensive. As I'm sure everyone here knows, I hate Trump, but this is one time when I think we're blowing shit out of proportion.

I see where you're coming from, but it's hard to give Trump the benefit of any doubt, with his past comments about John McCain, and his assertion in a Republican debate, which I think he should have gotten more shit for, that he'd give war crimes orders to the military and "believe me, if I tell them to do it, they'll do it."

He may have been saying that veterans need help, but I can't see him actually giving a shit about veterans. It reads to me like he knew that he had to say something about helping vets, and then he interjected what he really thought, which is his pattern.

[MerenthaClone]

Ahahahahah somehow Assange failed to clear the incredibly low bar I'd thought he'd make, by having literally nothing to release.  Nothing.  Not even the small, pointless release his paranoia and ego had spun up into something big.  Nope.  

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

If you read that single sentence, then sure. But the rest of the quote is sympathetic and he's talking about the necessity of helping vets, which is a very real, legitimate issue.

I get that. But no, this is not at all like Clinton's comment. That was taken out of context. The context of Trump's statement makes it clear that it was intended as sympathetic. But it does not make the comment any less insensitive or offensive or ignorant.

 

[davos]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Weirder; Ohio residents overwhelmingly thought Clinton won the debate...but followed it up with a mini-bump for Trump. If Ohio gives Trump the WH I will consign the entire state to perpetual Factory of Sadness...er...ness. Truly deserved.

I've only seen one Ohio poll conducted after the debate.  Yes, it shows a 5 point lead for Trump but I'm waiting for that to be backed by other polls before I accept that the debate and it's aftermath are not going to improve Clinton's position there.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

If you read that single sentence, then sure. But the rest of the quote is sympathetic and he's talking about the necessity of helping vets, which is a very real, legitimate issue. It's similar to Clinton's basement dweller quote for millennials. When taken out of context, it sounds bad but when read with the entire quote, it's significantly less offensive. As I'm sure everyone here knows, I hate Trump, but this is one time when I think we're blowing shit out of proportion.

No, still offensive.  He can easily talk about helping vets without suggesting that those with PTSD are just not strong enough.  Implying that someone is weak is one of the worst things to say to those suffering from mental illness, and especially PTSD.  Shit like this needs to blown out of proportion all the time no matter who is saying it because it's a very serious issue.  I feel I speak with some authority about this, btw, as I'm a vet with PTSD.  A lot of those 22 veteran suicides each day happen to be people who felt like complete failures because they just weren't 'strong' enough to get over their 'issues'.  

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, still offensive.  He can easily talk about helping vets without suggesting that those with PTSD are just not strong enough.  Implying that someone is weak is one of the worst things to say to those suffering from mental illness, and especially PTSD.  Shit like this needs to blown out of proportion all the time no matter who is saying it because it's a very serious issue.  I feel I speak with some authority about this, btw, as I'm a vet with PTSD.  A lot of those 22 veteran suicides each day happen to be people who felt like complete failures because they just weren't 'strong' enough to get over their 'issues'.  

Fair enough. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I get that. But no, this is not at all like Clinton's comment. That was taken out of context. The context of Trump's statement makes it clear that it was intended as sympathetic. But it does not make the comment any less insensitive or offensive or ignorant.

 

Unfortunately, well meaning insensitive is a huge improvement for Trump.

[SerPaladin]

15 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm genuinely kind of perplexed as to how or why you seem to view them as somewhat equally unpalatable character-wise, especially in light of how you seem uninterested in most issues of policy that might otherwise sway a voter.

Does the fact that Trump is phenomenally incompetent (a charge that simply cannot be leveled at Clinton), has been vigorously producing a veritable deluge of hate (not something Clinton is guilty of), is glorifying bullying (again, not Clinton, and it looks like his bullying is actually having an impact on kids), and lies with an ardor and frequency that appears to know no bounds (no one can say the same of Clinton on this either) differentiate them in your view?

I don't necessarily believe that they are equally unpalatable, his character is less palatable. But I am starting from a position on the grid as a pragmatic republican with some libertarian ideals. I'm not starting from some pure neutral position.

I yelled at my local fellow republicans for endorsing Trump preceding the primary, we live proximate to Atlantic City, and I was astounded that they endorsed him over Kasich. It did take three rounds of voting. I got yelled at a lot louder in return, afterward, to the point that I'm effectively ostracized and "out of politics", though I am finishing up a term as an elected official (as planned, I've had three terms). They are trying to force another dissenter out of office, taking very hard shots at him, admittedly he is a bit higher profile than I am. I've got minor anxiety that "loyalty oaths" are on the horizon, the Trump fans are that rabid, and in the back of my mind I'm glad my term ends December 31 and Trump's wouldn't start until late January. I've got a lot of good reasons not to support Trump that are not the experience of the typical American.

The problem is that with Hillary, I'm forced to not just concede, but to endorse, a 100% chance that the country moves away from what my preferred vision is. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, the only other time I voted D in a presidential election, because his "triangulation" was a lot closer to my vision than Bob Dole's greatest generation BS.

There is a significant amount of weight on one side of the scale that tips me toward voting "R" with all else being equal. AND there is a significant amount of weight on that same side that just plain doesn't like Hillary's policies and does not find her trustworthy. And with all those things on the scale, Trump's badness has managed to have me leaning toward voting for Hillary, a candidate that I deeply disagree with politically and do not like personally.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

OK - I think Lee Sheppard of Tax Notes has figured out exactly what was going on with Trump's yuge 1995 loss carryforward (Lee is very smart - I don't always agree with her (she's a gadfly by nature), but she is well-respected and technically pretty sound).

Per Lee, Trump probably held the GP interests in the partnerships that held the Casinos through S corporation(s).  Because of the quirky way S corporations work, In 1995, Lenders forgave ~$830 million of debt for the casinos and airlines.  This would have produced a huge cancellation of debt item.  Under the law in place at the time (including the Gitlitz case), the S corporation would have been permitted to exclude the income to the extent of its insolvency (probably the full amount),  This would have increased Trump's basis in the S corporation stock even though the income was not includible by anyone.  This allowed the pass through of the losses to Trump (usually limited to basis in S corporation shares). This is in effect a double dip (benefit of CODI exclusion and use of losses).  This basis bump result under Gitlitz was fixed by Congress in 2002, but Trump's fact pattern was grandfathered.  

Note that if he still has an S corporation, there is something else he is probably currently doing, which is to pay himself a (relatively nominal) salary from his S corporation on which he pays medicare/social security, and take the rest out (or not) without such tax.  This is also the result with an S corporation under current law.

[TerraPrime]

12 hours ago, Mexal said:

Yea, but it was based on a quote taken out of context.

 

 

No, it's not.

 

Trump is saying that more mental health care is needed for those who are not strong enough to deal with PTSD.

The problematic part is that PTSD is not about whether you're "strong" or "weak." Having PTSD doesn't mean you're weak. Not having PTSD makes you lucky, not "strong." It means you have coping mechanism in place already that helped you transition.

That is why Trump's comment is problematic. It propagates an unproductive and actually harmful way of seeing PTSD.