Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[chipwhich]

This makes me feel good about our leadership. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/index.html

 

 

The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.

Of course since the material wasn't marked classified she didn't know it was classified.  It's all the state departments fault not Hillary's. 

 

Fortunately for Hillary, the left is blind to it.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-faces-potential-minefield-hillary/story?id=32691620

 

Trump is correct.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-email-scandal-criminal

 

Oh and if you don't know, just because something isn't marked as classified isn't a defense for letting it out.

[chipwhich]

Hopefully people get smart.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/25/hillarys-inconceivably-stupid-capital-gains-tax-scheme-kudlow-commentary.html

 

 

In her latest economic speech, Clinton proposes doubling the capital-gains tax rate on the profit made from asset sales (stocks, bonds, real estate) held a day less than one year up to two years. Right now, if you take a capital gain a day more than one year, you are taxed at a 20 percent rate. Actually, it's 23.8 percent when you include the health-care surtax. So under Clinton's brilliant new play, you'd be taxed at 43.4 percent — the top individual cap-gains rate of 39.6 percent plus the 3.8 percent Obamacare surtax.

[88Comrade2000]

Donald Trump still going strong.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401

 

Well there is hope, maybe some Americans are smart enough to see through Hillary's nonsense.

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in Iowa among all registered voters:

Clinton -19 (37/56 percent)

Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent)

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in New Hampshire:

Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent)

Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent)

 

 

You do know, Hillary still beats Trump by double digits?    Hillary may not be the Democratic nominee but the Trump rise is also showing that the GOP will not be winning the Presidency in 2016.    I think overtime, Trump will fade.   Trump is talking the talk but there's no substance.  Once we get into late fall; people will want specifics and Trump won't have any. He'll start to fade. Thing is, those voters will be going where?  Maybe Ted Cruz?  I don't see Cruz winning the nomination.  I think the Trump voters will probably be staying home in 2016 because they won't have anyone that will motivate to come in the fall.  Should Trump go third party, they will go to him or they will stay him and teach the GOP a lesson.

[chipwhich]

You do know, Hillary still beats Trump by double digits?    Hillary may not be the Democratic nominee but the Trump rise is also showing that the GOP will not be winning the Presidency in 2016.    I think overtime, Trump will fade.   Trump is talking the talk but there's no substance.  Once we get into late fall; people will want specifics and Trump won't have any. He'll start to fade. Thing is, those voters will be going where?  Maybe Ted Cruz?  I don't see Cruz winning the nomination.  I think the Trump voters will probably be staying home in 2016 because they won't have anyone that will motivate to come in the fall.  Should Trump go third party, they will go to him or they will stay him and teach the GOP a lesson.

 

I am not concerned about Trump.  I am concerned about Hillary.  Shame she will be our next president.  Sad actually that anyone buys into her.

[Bliz]

Donald Trump still going strong.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401

 

Well there is hope, maybe some Americans are smart enough to see through Hillary's nonsense.

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in Iowa among all registered voters:

Clinton -19 (37/56 percent)

Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent)

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in New Hampshire:

Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent)

Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent)

 

Those numbers should definitely concern dems.  Especially because so few expressed no opinion.  

 

 All the Rs are underwater too, but (other than Trump) they have a lot of undecideds

 

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in Iowa among all registered voters:

Sanders +3 (30 percent/27 percent)

Rubio -1 (31 percent/32 percent)

Walker -1 (30 percent/31 percent)

Bush -12 (34 percent/46 percent)

Clinton -19 (37/56 percent)

Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent)

Notably, Clinton's fav/unfav score in Iowa among all registered voters mirrors what a recent Quinnipiac poll of the state found .

 

The favorable/unfavorable scores in New Hampshire:

Sanders +12 (41 percent/29 percent)

Bush -5 (40 percent/45 percent)

Walker -6 (28 percent/34 percent)

Rubio -6 (28 percent/34 percent)

Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent)

Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent)

 

 

 

Then again, I think most Dems and Pubs would tell you that 3 of the last 4 elections have been "lesser of two evil" votes for them (with Obama I and GWB I the exceptions).  Lots of Dems don't like Hil-Dog, but they'll still pull the lever because it's not like they're going to vote for Jeb.  It wouldn't stun me this go around if we set a new mark for "least favorable" candidates in polling. 

[mojo]

You do know, Hillary still beats Trump by double digits? Hillary may not be the Democratic nominee but the Trump rise is also showing that the GOP will not be winning the Presidency in 2016. I think overtime, Trump will fade. Trump is talking the talk but there's no substance. Once we get into late fall; people will want specifics and Trump won't have any. He'll start to fade. Thing is, those voters will be going where? Maybe Ted Cruz? I don't see Cruz winning the nomination. I think the Trump voters will probably be staying home in 2016 because they won't have anyone that will motivate to come in the fall. Should Trump go third party, they will go to him or they will stay him and teach the GOP a lesson.

I agree that Trump's popularity isn't a good sign for the GOP especially if he goes 3rd party which is highly unlikely. But the Dems should take notice. The most popular president in the last 30 years was Reagan, an actor, not unlike Trump.

[s0crates]

So Bernie has the highest favorable/unfavorable scores? And people hate Hillary?

Tell me again why Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie.

[chipwhich]

So Bernie has the highest favorable/unfavorable scores? And people hate Hillary?

Tell me again why Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie.

 

Trump, Hillary, and Jeb Bush are leading in the polls.  Do you really need to ask that question?

[Hersh]

So Bernie has the highest favorable/unfavorable scores? And people hate Hillary?

Tell me again why Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie.

 

Because the GOP smear campaign hasn't focused on Bernie yet. Honestly, I wonder if people can handle hearing the truth about things this country needs to do to pay for past debt and future projects

[nonniey]

Because the GOP smear campaign hasn't focused on Bernie yet. Honestly, I wonder if people can handle hearing the truth about things this country needs to do to pay for past debt and future projects

Why should the GOP smear campaign focus on him at all?  I 'm pretty certain Clinton's will do the job when push starts coming to shove..

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you're half right.  I think Jeb! has the cash to sit back and ignore the squabbling. 

 

 

I have long thought that Jeb Bush would be the nominie on the Rebublican side as well.  Trump has plenty of money and he could hang in, regardless of cost but he does not have the political engine behind him that Jeb Bush does.   I think either could have a pretty decent chance to defeat Hillary.  Heck, anybody that gets the nomination is going to have a decent chance IMO.   I think HIllary is vulanarable.  

[PeterMP]

Hopefully people get smart.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/25/hillarys-inconceivably-stupid-capital-gains-tax-scheme-kudlow-commentary.html

 

 

Would you be willing to explain what the problem is?

 

This is an idea that has had general support from a pretty broad group of people, including big names on Wall Street.

 

"Clinton’s plan for a tax hike is aligned with some voices on Wall Street and financial institutions. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, called earlier this year for a plan similar to Clinton’s. In a March letter to the executives of the 500 largest companies in the United States, Fink recommended holding the capital gains tax rate at income tax rates for three years—39.6% for the highest earners—and eventually dropping over a period of 10 years.

“We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior,” Fink said, using language similar to Clinton’s speech on Friday. “We believe that government leaders around the world—with a concerted push from both investors and companies—must act to address public policy that fosters long-term behavior.”"

 

http://time.com/3969682/hillary-clinton-tax-capital-gains/

 

Is Larry Fink not smart (when it comes to understanding investing and investment?

 

In terms of who is going to lock themselves into investing on returns taxed at 20% only after 6 years (the issue raised in your article), the answer is anybody saving for retirement.  

 

The old rule of thumb, I've always heard is that you shouldn't buy stocks with money you think you'll need in the next 10 years.

For example:

 

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/12-things-you-need-to-know-before-investing-in-stocks/

 

"Also, don’t invest in stocks if you have any goals that you hope to use that money for in the next ten years because the short-term risk of stocks is pretty significant."[/size]

 

So any money that I put into something like stocks, is an investment that I'm normally willing to wait 10 years on so six years isn't that big of a deal.[/size]

 

(Though, I do think you could make an argument for a shorter term capital gains tax that is even higher.  Something like a 60% tax on anything shorter than a month.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

 

Would you be willing to explain what the problem is?

 

This is an idea that has had general support from a pretty broad group of people, including big names on Wall Street.

 

"Clinton’s plan for a tax hike is aligned with some voices on Wall Street and financial institutions. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, called earlier this year for a plan similar to Clinton’s. In a March letter to the executives of the 500 largest companies in the United States, Fink recommended holding the capital gains tax rate at income tax rates for three years—39.6% for the highest earners—and eventually dropping over a period of 10 years.

“We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior,” Fink said, using language similar to Clinton’s speech on Friday. “We believe that government leaders around the world—with a concerted push from both investors and companies—must act to address public policy that fosters long-term behavior.”"

 

http://time.com/3969682/hillary-clinton-tax-capital-gains/

 

Is Larry Fink not smart (when it comes to understanding investing and investment?

 

In terms of who is going to lock themselves into investing on returns taxed at 20% only after 6 years (the issue raised in your article), the answer is anybody saving for retirement.  

 

The old rule of thumb, I've always heard is that you shouldn't buy stocks with money you think you'll need in the next 10 years.

For example:

 

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/12-things-you-need-to-know-before-investing-in-stocks/

 

"Also, don’t invest in stocks if you have any goals that you hope to use that money for in the next ten years because the short-term risk of stocks is pretty significant."[/size]

 

So any money that I put into something like stocks, is an investment that I'm normally willing to wait 10 years on so six years isn't that big of a deal.[/size]

 

(Though, I do think you could make an argument for a shorter term capital gains tax that is even higher.  Something like a 60% tax on anything shorter than a month.)

 

 

The problem, IMO, with anything that promises changes over a long period of time or promised benefits that kick in after a certain time frame is that it often does not materialize.   What you get is the burden of the increase but not the promised reductions or what have you.  You can't gaurantee who will be in office in 10 years or if their agenda will fit what is promised so it becomes very iffy as to what will actually be done.   Seen it too often, not interested in those kinds of solutuions.  JMO.

[Larry]

I like the idea of disincentiveizing short term "investment". (Let's face it. It's not investment, it's speculation). (So is what I do.). Me, I've been proposing a special tax on any stock held less than a week. A tax, whether there's any profit or not.

I think this Hillary proposal might go too far, though. I'm thinking six years might be too long. Although, I do recognize that were talking about only the top rate, too. Which hits VERY few people.

[PeterMP]

The problem, IMO, with anything that promises changes over a long period of time or promised benefits that kick in after a certain time frame is that it often does not materialize.   What you get is the burden of the increase but not the promised reductions or what have you.  You can't gaurantee who will be in office in 10 years or if their agenda will fit what is promised so it becomes very iffy as to what will actually be done.   Seen it too often, not interested in those kinds of solutuions.  JMO.

 

I think I understand what you are saying and that could certainly be an issue.

 

 

On another topic:

 

I'm not sure if it was intentional (with the idea that a strong Trump helps the Dems), but I think Obama's comments this morning on Trump and Huckabee actually help Trump and Huckabee.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/politics/obama-trump-huckabee-remarks/index.html

I like the idea of disincentiveizing short term "investment". (Let's face it. It's not investment, it's speculation). (So is what I do.). Me, I've been proposing a special tax on any stock held less than a week. A tax, whether there's any profit or not.

I think this Hillary proposal might go too far, though. I'm thinking six years might be too long. Although, I do recognize that were talking about only the top rate, too. Which hits VERY few people.

 

And it scales down over time.  The rate at year 5 is 24%.

 

How many people that are actually going to be affected aren't going to put money into a project at 20% tax rate, but won't at 24%?

 

I gotta think that number is pretty small.

 

 

And if they don't put in that project, what are they going to do with their money?  They aren't going to burn it.

[Larry]

And if they don't put in that project, what are they going to do with their money?  They aren't going to burn it.

That's my main reasoning for why I think long term capital gains should just be treated like any other income. People don't invest because the taxes are lower. They invest because they want a return.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think I understand what you are saying and that could certainly be an issue.

 

 

On another topic:

 

I'm not sure if it was intentional (with the idea that a strong Trump helps the Dems), but I think Obama's comments this morning on Trump and Huckabee actually help Trump and Huckabee.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/politics/obama-trump-huckabee-remarks/index.html

 

 

 

I guess I would say that the less the President says about things, the better for Hillary.   The base that will receive his opinions well is already secured for Hillary.   I suspect that you may be accurate in your opinions. 

[chipwhich]

If the Dem's had a legitimate challenger, now is the time to pounce.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out-2015-7

 

 

There is a reason Hillary Clinton's poll numbers show voters think she is untrustworthy: She keeps telling them things that are not true.

 

On the use of her e-mails, we know the long list of untruths about the private e-mail server and the e-mails, thousands of which were destroyed.

 

She turned over everything she had. (No, about 15 documents were not given to the State Department.)

 

She never got a subpoena. (Oh yes she did.)

 

She did it only for the convenience of using one device. (She had multiple devices.)

 

The biggest untruth of them all: She followed all the rules. No she did not, The Post's Glenn Kessler found: "In reality, Clinton's decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out-2015-7#ixzz3h706cXhG

 

 
 
Would you be willing to explain what the problem is?
 

 

It's really overboard.  6 years???

 

I wonder if she would have proposed this before she was worth over 100 Million.  Back in her futures trading days.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

[Larry]

Did some thinking about Hillary's plan, and a thought has occurred to me. 

 

Obviously, this is a bunch of maybes and speculation, from somebody who will never pay 20% on capital gains income.  But, . . .

 

The thought occurred to me that the only people in that tax bracket are people who have a lot of capital gains income.  What I think of as "the investment class". 

 

And then I remember, back when Kerry was running for President (and was getting attacked, for being rich), and he published his tax returns, . . .

 

While the GOP was attacking him because of how low a tax rate he paid, it was pointed out that a big part of the reason he laid such a low tax rate was because roughly half or Teresa Heinz Kerry's income came from tax free municipal bonds. 

 

And now I'm wondering:  If Hillary's proposal were enacted, (with a Republican congress?  Fat chance.), if the capital gains rate were to shoot up, and simultaneously force people to keep their money in the same place, for years, . . .

 

Would we see a massive shift of the investment class's assets from the stock market, to tax free municipal bonds? 

 

And might that actually be better for the economy?  If that money shifted from Wall Street to municipal bonds?  Infrastructure? 

 

----------

 

But like I said, that's a lot of "maybe"s, strung together. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Did some thinking about Hillary's plan, and a thought has occurred to me. 

 

Obviously, this is a bunch of maybes and speculation, from somebody who will never pay 20% on capital gains income.  But, . . .

 

The thought occurred to me that the only people in that tax bracket are people who have a lot of capital gains income.  What I think of as "the investment class". 

 

And then I remember, back when Kerry was running for President (and was getting attacked, for being rich), and he published his tax returns, . . .

 

While the GOP was attacking him because of how low a tax rate he paid, it was pointed out that a big part of the reason he laid such a low tax rate was because roughly half or Teresa Heinz Kerry's income came from tax free municipal bonds. 

 

And now I'm wondering:  If Hillary's proposal were enacted, (with a Republican congress?  Fat chance.), if the capital gains rate were to shoot up, and simultaneously force people to keep their money in the same place, for years, . . .

 

Would we see a massive shift of the investment class's assets from the stock market, to tax free municipal bonds? 

 

And might that actually be better for the economy?  If that money shifted from Wall Street to municipal bonds?  Infrastructure? 

 

----------

 

But like I said, that's a lot of "maybe"s, strung together. 

 

 

I think a lot depends on where you are buying them.  I would enver invest in Municpiple Bonds in a place like Detroit but in a place where the financial situation is stable, that's probably a pretty good investment.   I am certainly no authority so my opinion is nothing to take to the bank, so to speak.  It's an interesting question though.

[88Comrade2000]

If the Dem's had a legitimate challenger, now is the time to pounce.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out-2015-7

 

Her legitimate challengers, haven't decided yet.  The Dems know that having a woman as nominee vs. the current Republican party; probably means the presidency.  Thing is, their female choice, has some flaws and it's being exposed now.  Also, the base's heart is with Socialist Sanders.  Do, the potential challengers feel; Clinton is damage goods and can be beaten?

 

Realistically, you need to be up and running by October; if you want to mount a serious challenge.  So, there's some time.  I have no doubt that Joe Biden and John Kerry are giving it serious thought right now.  Al Gore, is probably looking at it.  Finally, Elizabeth Warren maybe finally convinced to jump.   It will not shock me; should one of those candidates get in; Obama gives his endorsement to them. The last thing Obama really wants, is for Hillary to be the nominee. All the email stuff, gives him an easy out. 

[Hersh]

If the Dem's had a legitimate challenger, now is the time to pounce.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-e-mail-excuses-never-pan-out-2015-7

 

 

 

Did you really use Jennifer Rubin as a source? Come on now.

 

BTW, for those talking about the email scandal still, apparently the NY Times severely misrepresented the truth last week.

 

 

Updated, 10:54 a.m. | The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

[Bliz]

  It will not shock me; should one of those candidates get in; Obama gives his endorsement to them. The last thing Obama really wants, is for Hillary to be the nominee. All the email stuff, gives him an easy out. 

 

"No drama" Obama?  Endorse someone (particularly someone who isn't the clear front-runner) before the race is over?  I don't think so.

 

The last thing Obama wants is for an R president in 2016 to undo Obamacare and the Iran deal (plus who knows what else).  Hillary will not do that, and she will veto efforts by Congress to do it.  He needs a D to protect his legacy.  Any D will do.  He would endorse Hillary 1000 times out of 1000 if he thought she had even a marginally better chance of beating the R nominee than whoever else on the D side.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Obama is not going to endorse anyone until the Convention unless Biden gets in. Even then he may stay silent. Presidents typically only endorse their VPs.

 

Also, there is an awful lot of goddamn time between now and the primaries.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-twitter-comment-john-sununu-wrong-spelling-120679.html

Donald Trump attacks John Sununu, sort of

 

Donald Trump tried to slap John Sununu on Monday, but he goofed. Trump spelled his name wrong — and it’s not even clear which Sununu he was going after.

The media mogul and 2016 Republican candidate on Monday published a tweet (since deleted) that said: “.@Senunu = who couldn’t get elected dog catcher in NH, forgot to mention my phenomenal business success rate - 99.2%”

 

Trump actually got the Twitter handle of his target wrong: @Senunu appears to be the handle of a Kurdish woman living in London.

 

It’s also not clear whether he was aiming for former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu (@GovernorSununu), or his son, former Sen. John E. Sununu (@JohnSununu).

“It sounds like Mr Trump has me confused with my father (eye test) and is having trouble with the name (spelling test). There are only three letters — how hard can it be?” the younger Sununu said in an email to POLITICO on Monday.

 

Earlier in the day, the former governor appeared on Fox News and was asked about a pair NBC News/ Marist polls showing Trump near or at the head of the 2016 Republican primary field in New Hampshire and Iowa.

 

The elder Sununu predicted that polling numbers would change dramatically as voters got a closer look of Trump.

 

“They’ve got to now start taking a measure of the man. Policy is part of it, character is part of it, performance is part of it. Sometimes little things that we don’t talk about yet — the four bankruptcies of the corporations that he was involved with,” Sununu said. “Those kinds of things begin to come out and then people begin to judge whether or not they want this kind of an individual leading their country. They’re happy with the words right now; soon they’ll be assessing the individual.”

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

We must build a wall to secure our border. It will save lives and help Make America Great Again!
3:44 PM