Well, now I know what the point of a Presidential debate is

[320 Years of History]

The Clinton strategy for the debates was to get Trump to "take da bait." LOL Now, in fairness, the "bait" Trump took was less that and more of Trump hoisting himself even higher by his own oratorical petard. It seemed more to me that he grabbed the "bait" that like pyrite glimmered before him, and then he vitiated himself with it.

• "She's such a nasty woman." -- Yes, sure, that's the right thing for Trump to say when the single largest voting bloc in the nation is women and it's the bloc to which one most needs to appeal in order to win the election. Not!
  
  Frankly, I perhaps shouldn't call that remark as Trump having taken "the bait" for what that was truly was an unforced error....All the he had to do was keep his damn mouth shut despite his rhetorical instincts, which by now he should have figured out -- Lord knows enough folks have said as much -- are not good when it comes to women.
• "I'm going to keep you in suspense" with regard to whether I'll accept the election results. -- Here again, for a man of whom one of the prime and valid objections to his becoming President is his irascible temperament and unsound judgmentally developed and often abasing conclusions and statements, neither quality being what one needs in a President, in a person who is the voice of America before the whole world (Hell, the President even has a weekly radio address on Voice of America), here again we see that Trump failed to directly or tacitly overcome that objection.
  
  That "keep you in suspense" remark was, if Trump had no other shortcomings, would have been a full on deal breaker for me. The notion that in the United States we would have a Presidential candidate who will not agree to a smooth and peaceful transfer of power as a result of the citizenry's vote is singularly disqualifying, all the more so when over the past 15 years there have been exactly 31 cases of election fraud/tampering out of literally billions of votes cast and counted, and that's with folks actually having gone looking for instances of such malignancy in our electoral system. It's disqualifying because refusing to accept election results is not a policy matter, it is a matter fundamental to what distinguishes the U.S. from the myriad banana republics, petty dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes around the globe.

Thus, we see that in two of the most significant dimensions in which Trump falls short of expectations, he did nothing to amend the perceptions about him.

I the Clinton campaign's strategy worked for Mrs. Clinton has managed, one way or another, to get him to do it to disastrous effect in all three debates. Can you say, "played like a violin?" In the first structured debate, Mrs. Clinton put the bait out there and Trump bit. In the second structured debate (today's), she disposed herself -- a risky gamble given that we know Trump had prepared for this debate, and one for which we won't for a long time know whether she had a fallback plan and if/when/where she'd opt to use it -- to sit back and let him dig his own holes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Clinton strategy for the debates was to get Trump to "take da bait." LOL Now, in fairness, the "bait" Trump took was less that and more of Trump hoisting himself even higher by his own oratorical petard. It seemed more to me that he grabbed the "bait" that like pyrite glimmered before him, and then he vitiated himself with it.

• "She's such a nasty woman." -- Yes, sure, that's the right thing for Trump to say when the single largest voting bloc in the nation is women and it's the bloc to which one most needs to appeal in order to win the election. Not!
  
  Frankly, I perhaps shouldn't call that remark as Trump having taken "the bait" for what that was truly was an unforced error....All the he had to do was keep his damn mouth shut despite his rhetorical instincts, which by now he should have figured out -- Lord knows enough folks have said as much -- are not good when it comes to women.
• "I'm going to keep you in suspense" with regard to whether I'll accept the election results. -- Here again, for a man of whom one of the prime and valid objections to his becoming President is his irascible temperament and unsound judgmentally developed and often abasing conclusions and statements, neither quality being what one needs in a President, in a person who is the voice of America before the whole world (Hell, the President even has a weekly radio address on Voice of America), here again we see that Trump failed to directly or tacitly overcome that objection.
  
  That "keep you in suspense" remark was, if Trump had no other shortcomings, would have been a full on deal breaker for me. The notion that in the United States we would have a Presidential candidate who will not agree to a smooth and peaceful transfer of power as a result of the citizenry's vote is singularly disqualifying, all the more so when over the past 15 years there have been exactly 31 cases of election fraud/tampering out of literally billions of votes cast and counted, and that's with folks actually having gone looking for instances of such malignancy in our electoral system. It's disqualifying because refusing to accept election results is not a policy matter, it is a matter fundamental to what distinguishes the U.S. from the myriad banana republics, petty dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes around the globe.

Thus, we see that in two of the most significant dimensions in which Trump falls short of expectations, he did nothing to amend the perceptions about him.

I the Clinton campaign's strategy worked for Mrs. Clinton has managed, one way or another, to get him to do it to disastrous effect in all three debates. Can you say, "played like a violin?" In the first structured debate, Mrs. Clinton put the bait out there and Trump bit. In the second structured debate (today's), she disposed herself -- a risky gamble given that we know Trump had prepared for this debate, and one for which we won't for a long time know whether she had a fallback plan and if/when/where she'd opt to use it -- to sit back and let him dig his own holes.

Yeah because all of that stuff Trump said weighs more heavily than all the incompetent, illegal and evil things that Hillary has done.

Sure, you run with that, lol.

 

[EverCurious]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did - Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money. The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not. It's disgusting. The majority of my buddies left during the whole 1% vs 99% crap when we were being threatened bodily harm simply for having money or getting an inheritance. It goes right along with her disrespect of "deplorable" and crap. I'm done playing "nice" with envious pigs, they are nasty individuals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did - Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money. The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not. It's disgusting. The majority of my buddies left during the whole 1% vs 99% crap when we were being threatened bodily harm simply for having money or getting an inheritance. It goes right along with her disrespect of "deplorable" and crap. I'm done playing "nice" with envious pigs, they are nasty individuals.

You are evil because you did not give all your money to feed the poor and live on cat food.

Just like Hillary.

 

[EverCurious]

hmm 'tis true, I've only donated a token amount to the local shelter, a thousand a year max. I admit I could have given more, but to be blunt, I preferred to spend my money in the local economy - stores and such - rather than sending it straight to the Natives that flood Anchorage looking for handouts and booze because we've no resolution for the homeless native problem [aka I consider it an unwise investment and a waste of money]

 

[320 Years of History]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did

Be that as it may, it was not you who stood at a dais and said that in support of your bid for the U.S. Presidency when you needed to do whatever you could to ingratiate yourself with women whom you've never met and whose votes you yet must obtain. There is a marked difference between what you can say without recourse and what a Presidential candidate can.

 

[320 Years of History]

The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

I don't have a term for that. I wasn't aware there is a term for it.

 

[EverCurious]

I am a woman and I have zero issue with Trump joking around in a private conversation. I'm a "deplorable," and I've said a /hell/ of a lot worse than Trump in my casual conversations. "Grab em by the balls" is a regular phrase in this country, "Does your pussy hurt" is another. The fake outrage just makes me laugh.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

I don't have a term for that. I wasn't aware there is a term for it.

Actually there is an old word for exactly that; ENVY, dude, and the Democratic Party is built on it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money.

I fully agree with you on that.

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not.

I think the figure is more akin to 55% than to 70%, but to be sure, I feel your pain and I empathize with it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Be that as it may, it was not you who stood at a dais and said that in support of your bid for the U.S. Presidency ...

Well, glad we cleared that up finally.

I thought that might have been Evercurious up there.....

 

[320 Years of History]

I am a woman and I have zero issue with Trump joking around in a private conversation. I'm a "deplorable," and I've said a /hell/ of a lot worse than Trump in my casual conversations. "Grab em by the balls" is a regular phrase in this country, "Does your pussy hurt" is another. The fake outrage just makes me laugh.

I too don't give a wet rat's ass about the words themselves or the tone they convey. It's the actual attitudes one must have in order to see fit to muster those words in communicating one's feelings.

 

[320 Years of History]

The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

I don't have a term for that. I wasn't aware there is a term for it.

Actually there is an old word for exactly that; ENVY, dude, and the Democratic Party is built on it.

Okay...that works for me. Call it envy.

 

[EverCurious]

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not.

I think the figure is more akin to 55% than to 70%, but to be sure, I feel your pain and I empathize with it.

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

The question is often asked: Do the rich pay their “fair share” in taxes? It’s never particularly clear what the rich currently pay, nor is it clear what share of taxes is fair for them to pay. A good place to start would be to determine exactly what high-income earners currently pay.

Estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation and recently highlighted in the Wall Street Journal make it abundantly clear that high-income earners pay a disproportion share of taxes in relation to their income in the U.S.

According to the Journal, taxpayers with income over $100,000 a year earn 60 percent of the nation’s income and pay 95.2 percent of the income taxes in the United States. If we consider all federal taxes paid (income, payroll, and excise taxes), those making over $100,000 (a little over 20 percent of taxpayers) pay for 75.7 percent of total federal taxes (this excludes the burden on corporate and investment taxes).

If we break this down further (as in the chart below), the level of progressivity in the tax code becomes even clearer. Those making over $200,000 comprise just over 5 percent of the nation’s taxpayers, earn 32.3 percent of the income, but pay 46.7 percent of total federal taxes and 70 percent of federal income taxes.

As we move down the income scale the ratio of taxes to income decreases. Those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year make up 15.6 percent of all taxpayers, earn 27.7 percent of income, pay 29 percent of total federal taxes and 25.2 percent of federal income taxes.

Those between $50,000 and $100,000 make up about a quarter of the country, earn 23.6 percent of all income, pay 18.6 percent of federal taxes and 11.3 percent of federal income taxes. Finally, taxpayers making less than $50,000 a year represent about half of the country, earn 16.4 percent of the nation’s income, pay 5.6 percent of taxes and have a negative share of income taxes because they receive more back then they pay out (largely due to refundable tax credit programs).

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did - Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money. The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not. It's disgusting. The majority of my buddies left during the whole 1% vs 99% crap when we were being threatened bodily harm simply for having money or getting an inheritance. It goes right along with her disrespect of "deplorable" and crap. I'm done playing "nice" with envious pigs, they are nasty individuals.

You are evil because you did not give all your money to feed the poor and live on cat food.

Just like Hillary.

The same folks that use that divisive tactic are under the impression that "money and programs" executed from Wash D.C. is what the "poor" need. Having volunteered and contributed a lot locally, I know that the only fixes involve MASSIVE amounts of one on one time and counseling to even BEGIN to determine "what poor people need". And Washington SUCKS at that. In fact, the very religious orgs and locals that actually FIX THINGS are ridiculed and minimized for their "competition" to govt solutions.

Hillary represents that false altruism and empathy. You empower and encourage communities to fix those divides. And don't ridicule people of faith who do a lot of the lifting. That's why it's called "The Salvation Army" and "Habitat for Humanity". They do more daily than most politicians do in a lifetime. Including "we're stronger together" Hillary.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did - Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money. The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not. It's disgusting. The majority of my buddies left during the whole 1% vs 99% crap when we were being threatened bodily harm simply for having money or getting an inheritance. It goes right along with her disrespect of "deplorable" and crap. I'm done playing "nice" with envious pigs, they are nasty individuals.

You are evil because you did not give all your money to feed the poor and live on cat food.

Just like Hillary.

The same folks that use that divisive tactic are under the impression that "money and programs" executed from Wash D.C. is what the "poor" need. Having volunteered and contributed a lot locally, I know that the only fixes involve MASSIVE amounts of one on one time and counseling to even BEGIN to determine "what poor people need". And Washington SUCKS at that. In fact, the very religious orgs and locals that actually FIX THINGS are ridiculed and minimized for their "competition" to govt solutions.

Hillary represents that false altruism and empathy. You empower and encourage communities to fix those divides. And don't ridicule people of faith who do a lot of the lifting. That's why it's called "The Salvation Army" and "Habitat for Humanity". They do more daily than most politicians do in a lifetime. Including "we're stronger together" Hillary.

There was a time when the welfare offered was just minimal to get people by and not starve.

But now it seems more oriented toward helping them maintain a Middle Class life style without have a job.

 

[EverCurious]

I am a woman and I have zero issue with Trump joking around in a private conversation. I'm a "deplorable," and I've said a /hell/ of a lot worse than Trump in my casual conversations. "Grab em by the balls" is a regular phrase in this country, "Does your pussy hurt" is another. The fake outrage just makes me laugh.

I too don't give a wet rat's ass about the words themselves or the tone they convey. It's the actual attitudes one must have in order to see fit to muster those words in communicating one's feelings.

Well there needs to be some share of outrage for all the Libs on my FB then - I'm a member of the LGBT community and trust me, they are JUST as bad in their words and tone (probably worse considering the conversations we have are bad enough that I advise them all to open separate FB accounts and never tell their bosses about the one they are yapping on...)

 

[EverCurious]

I actually said the exact same thing "Nasty woman" as Trump did - Us wealthy American's are sick and damn tired of being called bad people simply because we have money. The D's like to talk about racism, but what do you call it when you hate someone simply because they have money?

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not. It's disgusting. The majority of my buddies left during the whole 1% vs 99% crap when we were being threatened bodily harm simply for having money or getting an inheritance. It goes right along with her disrespect of "deplorable" and crap. I'm done playing "nice" with envious pigs, they are nasty individuals.

You are evil because you did not give all your money to feed the poor and live on cat food.

Just like Hillary.

The same folks that use that divisive tactic are under the impression that "money and programs" executed from Wash D.C. is what the "poor" need. Having volunteered and contributed a lot locally, I know that the only fixes involve MASSIVE amounts of one on one time and counseling to even BEGIN to determine "what poor people need". And Washington SUCKS at that. In fact, the very religious orgs and locals that actually FIX THINGS are ridiculed and minimized for their "competition" to govt solutions.

Hillary represents that false altruism and empathy. You empower and encourage communities to fix those divides. And don't ridicule people of faith who do a lot of the lifting. That's why it's called "The Salvation Army" and "Habitat for Humanity". They do more daily than most politicians do in a lifetime. Including "we're stronger together" Hillary.

Don't forget the hospitals. Most of them are religiously affiliated (at least the ones up here are) They offer all kinds of lost cost and free hospital care for the poor.

 

[PurpleOwl]

I am a woman and I have zero issue with Trump joking around in a private conversation. I'm a "deplorable," and I've said a /hell/ of a lot worse than Trump in my casual conversations. "Grab em by the balls" is a regular phrase in this country, "Does your pussy hurt" is another. The fake outrage just makes me laugh.

so you would have no problem if trump grabbed your daughter by the pussy?

 

[320 Years of History]

We pay 70% of the god damn taxes in this country and that's how people treat us - like non-Americans, like thieves, like criminals when we are not.

I think the figure is more akin to 55% than to 70%, but to be sure, I feel your pain and I empathize with it.

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

The question is often asked: Do the rich pay their “fair share” in taxes? It’s never particularly clear what the rich currently pay, nor is it clear what share of taxes is fair for them to pay. A good place to start would be to determine exactly what high-income earners currently pay.

Estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation and recently highlighted in the Wall Street Journal make it abundantly clear that high-income earners pay a disproportion share of taxes in relation to their income in the U.S.

According to the Journal, taxpayers with income over $100,000 a year earn 60 percent of the nation’s income and pay 95.2 percent of the income taxes in the United States. If we consider all federal taxes paid (income, payroll, and excise taxes), those making over $100,000 (a little over 20 percent of taxpayers) pay for 75.7 percent of total federal taxes (this excludes the burden on corporate and investment taxes).

If we break this down further (as in the chart below), the level of progressivity in the tax code becomes even clearer. Those making over $200,000 comprise just over 5 percent of the nation’s taxpayers, earn 32.3 percent of the income, but pay 46.7 percent of total federal taxes and 70 percent of federal income taxes.

As we move down the income scale the ratio of taxes to income decreases. Those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year make up 15.6 percent of all taxpayers, earn 27.7 percent of income, pay 29 percent of total federal taxes and 25.2 percent of federal income taxes.

Those between $50,000 and $100,000 make up about a quarter of the country, earn 23.6 percent of all income, pay 18.6 percent of federal taxes and 11.3 percent of federal income taxes. Finally, taxpayers making less than $50,000 a year represent about half of the country, earn 16.4 percent of the nation’s income, pay 5.6 percent of taxes and have a negative share of income taxes because they receive more back then they pay out (largely due to refundable tax credit programs).

Okay, so you and I have different definitions of what it means to be rich, but the theme is no different regardless of the measure one uses. I suppose one can use a variety of cutoff points to define "rich," or at least what it means to be "doing alright." Wherever one draws the line, the fact remains that the folks who earn the most money far and away pay most of the taxes, and the rest of the citizenry wants us to pay more and receive ever less -- tangibly and intangibly -- for doing so.

Some illustrations of where one might draw the line between the "haves" and "have nots."

• According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, 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)
  • What does it take to be a one-percenter? The answer depends on a few different factors, but in a nutshell, it doesn't take nearly as much as I suspect many folks think. Indeed, even makng it into the 1% of the 1% isn't beyond reason for folks in a host of career fields no matter one's age or location, and certainly not for reasonably successful business owners.
    • What Does It Take to Be in the Top 1 Percent? Not As Much As You Think
      
    • How Much Income Puts You in the 1 Percent if You're 30, 40, or 50?
      
    • Here's what you need to earn to be in the top 1% in 13 major US cities
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
•