Gee, who could have predicted...

[dannyboys]

Who in their right mind would want the heavily populated (DEM) coastal cities to decide the fate of the rest of the country?
I guess any DEM would obviously.

 

[Anathema]

So Trump has "promised" to take away the right of women and minorities to vote?????
This my friends is what passes for intelligent debate with a LIB.

I'm not a Liberal. In fact I'm ultra-Conservative who would applaud the return to a caste system where Men lead and women know their place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Nope, it was 218 to 290, which is less.

Yeah, let's play dumb.

You know, this whole "he or she won the popular vote" is really a canard and not applicable. IF everyone knew that was the way the votes would be counted, then you might have a point. As it is, the candidates campaign completely differently and the mindset of voters in states that really aren't in play (California, NY, TX) would be different as well, so you really don't know how it would have turned out.

We're not talking about not knowing the system. We're talking about changing it so people's votes count equally in the future. Maryland has said it is looking into changing the way it gives its EC votes out. Shouldn't everyone else do this?

Many Hillary supporters are indeed talking about her winning the popular vote total as a way to in some measure de-legitimize the Trump win. And there has been talk for some time about changing the system to a popular vote. I believe my neighbor, former Indiana senator Birch Bayh, was part of this effort.

And yes, it does seem anachronistic, because we have changed pretty dramatically from the original "union of states" to form a country to one country made up several divided areas.

Maybe they are, and maybe Trump supporters in the same situation would be saying similar things. Often people on both sides are more interested in winning than in anything else. They don't have set ideals that they wish to happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the argument for some on this forum is "this isn't how we do things, so we won't do that", which seems rather ridiculous. But I guess that's why they call them conservatives, except for all the things they don't like, which they do want to change.... go figure. Anything the people in charge of the Republicans tell them to think, they'll think it.

The argument is within the system our founders setup.

During the formation of our government, it was thought that population representation should be our government structure in Congress. This was not fair to the smaller states like in the NE area. So along with congressional representation by population, they created the US Senate so that there is equal power given to those smaller states.

So while areas with more people (and larger states) have more Congressional representatives, they only have two Senators, and it doesn't matter if your state is Rhode Island or California. Each get only two Senators.

If we did away with the electoral college, then we could end up having a few states control the White House forever. It wouldn't even make sense for the less populated states to vote. The electoral college (like the US Senate) helps equalize the power of larger population. In essence, getting rid of our current system would be like getting rid of the US Senate and just allowing Congress to make all the laws. Mob rule.

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Nope, we got more votes, and the electoral votes.

Win/win.
You are the extremist. You just are confused because you live in a small geographical area where everybody you know is exactly like you..so being an idiot, you think the whole world appreciates your superiority.

They don't. You aren't superior, and the majority spoke resoundingly against you idiots.

 

[blackhawk]

Ok so far Hillary has lost because of Comey, the Russians, Wikileaks, and the Electoral College you know it's very possible she lost because of none of these things but because she was a bad tone deaf candidate who ran a poor campaign.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

Well, whatever the Founding Fathers wanted, it doesn't exist and can't exist. This is 200 something years after they devised a system and it's clearly not working. Perhaps it's time for something else. Most people want to believe that they have an equal say in their country, wouldn't you say? Instead there is a system which treats people unequally. Is that what the modern USA wants to be about?

Yes, states have lost a lot of power. Why? Well it's probably down to collective greed. People wanted to be the best, they want to go around the world kicking ass and all that stuff, you need a strong federal govt for that. The US with strong states and a weaker federal govt is one that plays less of a part in the world. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

However if the president's power were much reduced, then I think people wouldn't care so much about the presidential election, but they do. People are more likely to know who the president is than their own state representatives.

The rich HAVE taken over. The tax rate for the rich is what? In Trump's case in the last 20 years it seems to be at about -$900,000,000 dollars. He's not paid federal taxes, I'd wonder if he's paid state taxes, and it seems he's been given a lot of money. The actual tax rate for the rich and the reality of what they pay are two very different things. Why do you think Trump refused to release his tax returns? It's not hard to imagine, is it?

"The rich" pay so much because they'll put people in over $100,000 in there as "the rich", but when you get to the top earners, the top 0.1%, the real people who do the real controlling, then what do you get? Oh, wait, we won't be able to find out those statistics, will we?

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

"
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes"

"the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)."

So, they pay 45%, and yet probably make something like 80% of the money. But this is the top 1%.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

"In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues"

So, the rich have managed to get corporate income tax down from between 25% and 33% to 10%. Oh, yeah, the rich aren't running things.

Yes, they're paying a lot of tax, perhaps in ways they can't manage to get out of. It depends on how the govt sees that they're paying the tax. I mean, if a businessman takes into account their business, and other things, are they paying this tax or is their business paying this tax?

All in all we know a lot of rich people are getting out of paying their fair share of taxes. Pharma companies are a classic example. They get rich off of the US govt spending money on medical research that the Pharma companies deem too risky, ie a high chance that the research won't produce anything. But when it does they make billions from it, and yet manage to get out of paying a lot of the taxes that go to fund the research, let alone the infrastructure they use.

Also the US system is set up, and the EU govt has recently and famously stopped this against Google, is that companies can threaten to move to another part of the country in order to get states or cities to pay them huge sums of money, whereas smaller businesses won't be able to get this money. Another example of the rich being in charge.

I lost this time, I was always going to lose, seeing as I don't support the main two parties. There's no chance for change, for a third party to come up. That's why I prefer a system which allows other parties. I did a test a few days back and the candidate that was closest to me was a third party and came in at 47%, ie, 53% I didn't agree with her. Wonderful.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok so far Hillary has lost because of Comey, the Russians, Wikileaks, and the Electoral College you know it's very possible she lost because of none of these things but because she was a bad tone deaf candidate who ran a poor campaign.

Well Trump said he was going to lose weeks ago because of a rigged system, the media etc etc. Turns out the system is rigged, in his favor, turns out the media has given him so much free publicity it's ridiculous, and they're still moaning about it.

Who won? Well rich America has won, the poor get fucked over again, and would have with Hillary or with Trump. They didn't stand a chance, did they?

 

[blackhawk]

Ok so far Hillary has lost because of Comey, the Russians, Wikileaks, and the Electoral College you know it's very possible she lost because of none of these things but because she was a bad tone deaf candidate who ran a poor campaign.

Well Trump said he was going to lose weeks ago because of a rigged system, the media etc etc. Turns out the system is rigged, in his favor, turns out the media has given him so much free publicity it's ridiculous, and they're still moaning about it.

Who won? Well rich America has won, the poor get fucked over again, and would have with Hillary or with Trump. They didn't stand a chance, did they?

Wow not an orginal thought in that response oh well back to football.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok so far Hillary has lost because of Comey, the Russians, Wikileaks, and the Electoral College you know it's very possible she lost because of none of these things but because she was a bad tone deaf candidate who ran a poor campaign.

Well Trump said he was going to lose weeks ago because of a rigged system, the media etc etc. Turns out the system is rigged, in his favor, turns out the media has given him so much free publicity it's ridiculous, and they're still moaning about it.

Who won? Well rich America has won, the poor get fucked over again, and would have with Hillary or with Trump. They didn't stand a chance, did they?

Wow not an orginal thought in that response oh well back to football.

You just attack. You complain about "orginal thought" and yet you're doing the same shit that happens so much on here.

As if politics were always about being original.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well Trump said he was going to lose weeks ago because of a rigged system, the media etc etc. Turns out the system is rigged, in his favor, turns out the media has given him so much free publicity it's ridiculous, and they're still moaning about it.

Who won? Well rich America has won, the poor get fucked over again, and would have with Hillary or with Trump. They didn't stand a chance, did they?

Free publicity? Hil-liar did half of the events Trump did. She hasn't had a press conference in how many weeks? Bill O' invited her on his number one show repeatedly, and her team never even responded.

She had every opportunity as Trump did for exposure, but she didn't pursue it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well Trump said he was going to lose weeks ago because of a rigged system, the media etc etc. Turns out the system is rigged, in his favor, turns out the media has given him so much free publicity it's ridiculous, and they're still moaning about it.

Who won? Well rich America has won, the poor get fucked over again, and would have with Hillary or with Trump. They didn't stand a chance, did they?

Free publicity? Hil-liar did half of the events Trump did. She hasn't had a press conference in how many weeks? Bill O' invited her on his number one show repeatedly, and her team never even responded.

She had every opportunity as Trump did for exposure, but she didn't pursue it.

Yes, free publicity. Trump was top of the billing almost every day for a year. He'd never have won the Republican primaries without it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

Well, whatever the Founding Fathers wanted, it doesn't exist and can't exist. This is 200 something years after they devised a system and it's clearly not working. Perhaps it's time for something else. Most people want to believe that they have an equal say in their country, wouldn't you say? Instead there is a system which treats people unequally. Is that what the modern USA wants to be about?

Yes, states have lost a lot of power. Why? Well it's probably down to collective greed. People wanted to be the best, they want to go around the world kicking ass and all that stuff, you need a strong federal govt for that. The US with strong states and a weaker federal govt is one that plays less of a part in the world. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

However if the president's power were much reduced, then I think people wouldn't care so much about the presidential election, but they do. People are more likely to know who the president is than their own state representatives.

The rich HAVE taken over. The tax rate for the rich is what? In Trump's case in the last 20 years it seems to be at about -$900,000,000 dollars. He's not paid federal taxes, I'd wonder if he's paid state taxes, and it seems he's been given a lot of money. The actual tax rate for the rich and the reality of what they pay are two very different things. Why do you think Trump refused to release his tax returns? It's not hard to imagine, is it?

"The rich" pay so much because they'll put people in over $100,000 in there as "the rich", but when you get to the top earners, the top 0.1%, the real people who do the real controlling, then what do you get? Oh, wait, we won't be able to find out those statistics, will we?

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

"
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes"

"the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)."

So, they pay 45%, and yet probably make something like 80% of the money. But this is the top 1%.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

"In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues"

So, the rich have managed to get corporate income tax down from between 25% and 33% to 10%. Oh, yeah, the rich aren't running things.

Yes, they're paying a lot of tax, perhaps in ways they can't manage to get out of. It depends on how the govt sees that they're paying the tax. I mean, if a businessman takes into account their business, and other things, are they paying this tax or is their business paying this tax?

All in all we know a lot of rich people are getting out of paying their fair share of taxes. Pharma companies are a classic example. They get rich off of the US govt spending money on medical research that the Pharma companies deem too risky, ie a high chance that the research won't produce anything. But when it does they make billions from it, and yet manage to get out of paying a lot of the taxes that go to fund the research, let alone the infrastructure they use.

Also the US system is set up, and the EU govt has recently and famously stopped this against Google, is that companies can threaten to move to another part of the country in order to get states or cities to pay them huge sums of money, whereas smaller businesses won't be able to get this money. Another example of the rich being in charge.

I lost this time, I was always going to lose, seeing as I don't support the main two parties. There's no chance for change, for a third party to come up. That's why I prefer a system which allows other parties. I did a test a few days back and the candidate that was closest to me was a third party and came in at 47%, ie, 53% I didn't agree with her. Wonderful.

Oh please, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Reagan realized that you need to make it profitable for companies to stay in the US.

Yes, corporations paid more in the past, but that was only because they had nowhere else to go. Travel was risky as we didn't have satellites in the sky to warn us of dangerous weather, our communications were primitive at best, and company owners needed to be near their top executives for meetings, management and planning.

Today is a different world. A CEO can run a company from the bathroom of his home with a simple cell phone. He doesn't need to travel back to the US to manage his investments. He can also do all that over the phone. Meetings are setup over the internet instead of in person. That makes it easier to have companies overseas and still have personal contact with valuable executives.

Because of our technological advancements, we need to cater to our job creators more than ever. They can leave and take jobs with them at the drop of a hat. If that's not feasible, they can invest in automation to replace workers that do monkey jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, free publicity. Trump was top of the billing almost every day for a year. He'd never have won the Republican primaries without it.

Was that because he was Trump or he had more interesting things to say than the other candidates?

I listened to Jeb on conservative talk radio. I almost had to pull over because he was putting me to sleep. I heard Kasich as well. Another bore fest as (like in the primaries) all he wanted to talk about is what he did in the past.

If you are going to credit free publicity for Trump's success, it's because he earned it. He was provocative, anti-PC, said what was on his mind, and voters found that refreshing.

 

[easyt65]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Do you even understand the EC and how it prevents the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans? Evidently not. Thank God our leaders were smarter / wiser than whiny liberal idiots.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

...libs would lose their fucking minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

This sums it all up, Leftism is the new Fascism, Leftism is a mental illness, Leftists are emotionally immature Adult-Infants who throw temper tantrums when something doesn't go their way, Leftists are the MOST intolerant thugs, Leftists are the ultimate hypocrites, Leftists hate Democracy, Leftists want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them etc.

This is you and this is why we on the Right hate you and this is why Independents hate you and this is why Leftism has no future, because the Leftist version of the future isn't what normal, healthy-minded people want.

The duration of the video is five minutes and twelve seconds.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that was back in the time when the states actually meant independent states. That isn't so any more. The current system leads to some states having much less power anyway. California still has more EC votes than Wyoming. So it's mob rule just in a slightly different way.

For every electoral college vote in California, you have 711,000 people voting. For ever EC vote in Wyoming you have 195,000 people voting. So a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California by 3 1/2 times. Why should the people in Wyoming be given such power and the people in California have such little power?

Most of the time the mob wins the election. Does this cause problems?

The one thing it does do is allow the rich to completely take over. The Founding Fathers intended a system which gave power to the people. They wanted to do away with a monarch having total control over things, and put this in the hands of the people. Well something went wrong in their calculations. The people aren't in control any more, this is the biggest problem. The system is so easily open to abuse, it's ridiculous. The people don't have a say in who will be their president, they don't have a say in how their Congress will act, the rich decide. And this is why it needs to change.

Things have change. I understand that now the conservatives have seen that the system unfairly represents them, and gives them a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had, but it's unfair, and a person of principles would see that what the founders wanted no longer exists anyway.

Perhaps, but getting rid of the College would drive that even further away from what they wanted.

You did stumble on a good point though, and that is states don't have the power that they used to. If anything is to change, that should be the first target. Remember too that a Presidents decision or policy can affect states differently. So it's imperative that they do have some advantage over larger states with larger populations. It's equitable that they do so.

The rich have not taken over. If that were the case, their taxes would be much lower. If that were the case, they wouldn't be paying over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that were the case, Hillary would have been the winner since she outspent Trump by over a two-to-one margin. If that were the case, corporations would not have to suffer the tens of thousands federal regulations they have to abide by.

The system we have is fine, it's just that you lost this round. But you had eight years of Obama and don't want to give anybody else a turn. Talk about a monarchy. I also believe that people are starting to see the man behind the curtain. The Democrat party is trying to make whites a minority in this country since the first time of our founding. This is because minorities vote Democrat most of the time, and making whites a minority will be a monarchy since we would then be a single-party government for the rest of our time.

Well, whatever the Founding Fathers wanted, it doesn't exist and can't exist. This is 200 something years after they devised a system and it's clearly not working. Perhaps it's time for something else. Most people want to believe that they have an equal say in their country, wouldn't you say? Instead there is a system which treats people unequally. Is that what the modern USA wants to be about?

Yes, states have lost a lot of power. Why? Well it's probably down to collective greed. People wanted to be the best, they want to go around the world kicking ass and all that stuff, you need a strong federal govt for that. The US with strong states and a weaker federal govt is one that plays less of a part in the world. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

However if the president's power were much reduced, then I think people wouldn't care so much about the presidential election, but they do. People are more likely to know who the president is than their own state representatives.

The rich HAVE taken over. The tax rate for the rich is what? In Trump's case in the last 20 years it seems to be at about -$900,000,000 dollars. He's not paid federal taxes, I'd wonder if he's paid state taxes, and it seems he's been given a lot of money. The actual tax rate for the rich and the reality of what they pay are two very different things. Why do you think Trump refused to release his tax returns? It's not hard to imagine, is it?

"The rich" pay so much because they'll put people in over $100,000 in there as "the rich", but when you get to the top earners, the top 0.1%, the real people who do the real controlling, then what do you get? Oh, wait, we won't be able to find out those statistics, will we?

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

"
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes"

"the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available)."

So, they pay 45%, and yet probably make something like 80% of the money. But this is the top 1%.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

"In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues"

So, the rich have managed to get corporate income tax down from between 25% and 33% to 10%. Oh, yeah, the rich aren't running things.

Yes, they're paying a lot of tax, perhaps in ways they can't manage to get out of. It depends on how the govt sees that they're paying the tax. I mean, if a businessman takes into account their business, and other things, are they paying this tax or is their business paying this tax?

All in all we know a lot of rich people are getting out of paying their fair share of taxes. Pharma companies are a classic example. They get rich off of the US govt spending money on medical research that the Pharma companies deem too risky, ie a high chance that the research won't produce anything. But when it does they make billions from it, and yet manage to get out of paying a lot of the taxes that go to fund the research, let alone the infrastructure they use.

Also the US system is set up, and the EU govt has recently and famously stopped this against Google, is that companies can threaten to move to another part of the country in order to get states or cities to pay them huge sums of money, whereas smaller businesses won't be able to get this money. Another example of the rich being in charge.

I lost this time, I was always going to lose, seeing as I don't support the main two parties. There's no chance for change, for a third party to come up. That's why I prefer a system which allows other parties. I did a test a few days back and the candidate that was closest to me was a third party and came in at 47%, ie, 53% I didn't agree with her. Wonderful.

Oh please, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Reagan realized that you need to make it profitable for companies to stay in the US.

Yes, corporations paid more in the past, but that was only because they had nowhere else to go. Travel was risky as we didn't have satellites in the sky to warn us of dangerous weather, our communications were primitive at best, and company owners needed to be near their top executives for meetings, management and planning.

Today is a different world. A CEO can run a company from the bathroom of his home with a simple cell phone. He doesn't need to travel back to the US to manage his investments. He can also do all that over the phone. Meetings are setup over the internet instead of in person. That makes it easier to have companies overseas and still have personal contact with valuable executives.

Because of our technological advancements, we need to cater to our job creators more than ever. They can leave and take jobs with them at the drop of a hat. If that's not feasible, they can invest in automation to replace workers that do monkey jobs.

The US has a higher corporate tax rate than other countries, slightly higher than France's. There are 8 1/2 countries with corporation tax higher or as high as the US's. Greece being higher in the first year and then lower after that.

Then again the US might have such high corporate tax because of the loopholes that effectively reduce the amount large companies end up spending.

These 4 Corporate Tax Loopholes Are Mind-Boggling -- The Motley Fool

"One particularly egregious corporate loophole effectively rewards companies for wrongdoing. When companies get sued, they're allowed to deduct the amounts they have to pay in damages to compensate their victims against their taxable income. In effect, this forces taxpayers to share in the financial fallout of their actions."

"some companies are getting a killer tax break through a method commonly known as tax inversion deals."

"A tax inversion happens when a domestic company purchases a foreign company in a country with a lower marginal corporate tax rate than the United States and then redomiciles its headquarters in the foreign country. "

The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know

"
The Corporate Inversions Tax Loophole: What You Need to Know"

"You want a mind-boggling loophole? Consider this: Many big American companies are opting not to bring home revenue they generate abroad -- because it will be taxed. According to some studies, more than $2 trillion is being stored abroad, and that means that more than $600 billion in taxes is not being collected."

"
Many feel that our current corporate tax rate of 35% is too high, but others, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, have pointed out that because of various tax breaks and loopholes, many corporations pay far less than 35% -- and that corporations' share of the country's total tax revenue was recently just 9%, far lower than the roughly 33% it was in 1950."

10 Accounting Tricks the 1% Use to Dodge the Taxman - The Accounting Degree Review

Tax Havens, Shell Companies, Equity Swaps, Avoiding Capital Gains Tax, Evading the Estate Tax, Shell Trust Funds, Incorporating, Payments in Kind, Life-Insurance Borrowing, Real Estate Borrowing.

Yeah, now corporations are more international, and they're playing govts off each other, both within the US and outside. This happens because govts allow it to happen.

Govt's should come together to make sure that certain things are followed, but then some will exploit this for their own gains, so it'll never happen.

In the Google Irish case, the EU basically said that if you set up a tax rate, all companies must be subject to this tax rate, as opposed to Google which seems to think that 12.5% of $9 billion is zero.
This will prevent companies in the EU from moving and taking advantage. Personally I think that whatever a company earns in a country they should pay tax in the country it was earned.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

Do you even understand the EC and how it prevents the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans? Evidently not. Thank God our leaders were smarter / wiser than whiny liberal idiots.

Oh, wow, insults.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, free publicity. Trump was top of the billing almost every day for a year. He'd never have won the Republican primaries without it.

Was that because he was Trump or he had more interesting things to say than the other candidates?

I listened to Jeb on conservative talk radio. I almost had to pull over because he was putting me to sleep. I heard Kasich as well. Another bore fest as (like in the primaries) all he wanted to talk about is what he did in the past.

If you are going to credit free publicity for Trump's success, it's because he earned it. He was provocative, anti-PC, said what was on his mind, and voters found that refreshing.

More interesting? Possibly. What's more interesting, entertainment or politics? What's more interesting, real policies or make belief ones? Has the US sunk so low that people who are entertaining are the ones who get listened to? Those with real ideas don't?

Imagine an interview for the job of CEO of a large multi-national company, and the person who gets the job is the one who is the most entertaining. Wouldn't happen, would it?

You might have been bored by Bush, but he also might have run the country better. Think about it.