(o)(o) wrote:Trump voters will love it if he avoided paying taxes.
Not all. His problem is that he has been putting himself as a champion of ordinary people, but that’s hard to do if the press are focussed on his abusive tax avoidance. At the same time it highlights his terrible business record, chipping away at one of his main claims to being a good choice for president, his excellent negotiating and deal-making skills.
As this weeks gone on the debate looks worse and worse for Trump, better and better for Clinton. She was the one who brought up Alicia Machado, highlighting Trump’s history as a sexist, racist bully. She goaded him into saying “that makes me smart” when presented with his non-payment of tax, encouraging the press to get to the bottom of it. She also flat out called him a racist for his part in the “Birther” movement, something he sounded ridiculous trying to rewrite the history of, reminded people he was only rich as he had been given millions by his father, and generally made him look ignorant and incompetent.
(o)(o) wrote:Trump voters will love it if he avoided paying taxes.
Not all. His problem is that he has been putting himself as a champion of ordinary people, but that’s hard to do if the press are focussed on his abusive tax avoidance. At the same time it highlights his terrible business record, chipping away at one of his main claims to being a good choice for president, his excellent negotiating and deal-making skills.
As this weeks gone on the debate looks worse and worse for Trump, better and better for Clinton. She was the one who brought up Alicia Machado, highlighting Trump’s history as a sexist, racist bully. She goaded him into saying “that makes me smart” when presented with his non-payment of tax, encouraging the press to get to the bottom of it. She also flat out called him a racist for his part in the “Birther” movement, something he sounded ridiculous trying to rewrite the history of, reminded people he was only rich as he had been given millions by his father, and generally made him look ignorant and incompetent.
No not all but it's interesting when you talk to Americans (as I was doing on a Martin Shkreli live stream the other day) and you realise just how prevelant the "all taxes are bad.. mkay?" is. Plus trump supporters talking up an armed response if Clunton wins. Not that this is very likely to happen, nor is it likely that Trump will win, or that he intended to win in the first place, or was ever really in the running.. but it shows the growing tensions and polarisation of views caused by the neoliberal world order.
I think it’s only a small minority that are for abolishing taxes altogether. They tend to vote Libertarian, i.e. for Gary Johnson. He’s polling at around 8%, and is doing exceptionally well for a Libertarian – he is a former Republican governor so has national recognition.
The thing is though that this is a big issue for Republicans. Remember Romney lost in part because he was caught complaining to rich donors at a private dinner about the 47% who pay no income taxes. Never mind that many of those do so for good reason – they might be retired, or students, or doing unpaid work – and it is a meaningless statistic. It’s part of Republican folklore, that they pay [too much] tax to pay to lazy, underserving welfare recipients. But they accept that people should pay tax, and that those that don’t are not to be trusted.
pogo wrote:I think it’s only a small minority that are for abolishing taxes altogether. They tend to vote Libertarian, i.e. for Gary Johnson. He’s polling at around 8%, and is doing exceptionally well for a Libertarian – he is a former Republican governor so has national recognition.
He's also not Trump, which is the best and most important characteristic for any presidential candidate to have right now.
Yes. With both Clinton and Trump unpopular (I think she is the most unpopular major party candidate ever, except for Trump who is far worse) it’s not surprising third party candidates are doing better than usual, though the US system makes it really hard for them to do well.
But these are odd times, in American politics. The Republican party seems on a path to ever greater irrelevance; it consists of so many contradictions and fallacies that I can’t see how it can win a presidential election again. Social change, demographic change, changing attitudes to wealth and power are all working against it. If it can’t change it might wither away, to be replaced by who knows what.
It was hard to see how the Conservatives were ever going to bounce back after their '97 defeat, yet here we are, enjoying the wonderful stability they've brought to the UK.
pogo wrote:
The thing is though that this is a big issue for Republicans. Remember Romney lost in part because he was caught complaining to rich donors at a private dinner about the 47% who pay no income taxes. Never mind that many of those do so for good reason – they might be retired, or students, or doing unpaid work – and it is a meaningless statistic.
Sadly I also am skeptical this will hurt Trump much. The problem is there will be another scandal with him along in a few minutes to distract everyone.
Theres just so much, nothing really gets focused on or stuck.
I mean, using his charity to pay of lawsuits should have done something surely?
It’s very different here. I think it’s much more cyclical. A party is elected, enjoys a few years to a decade or more of successes, but runs out of ideas/gets tired. Meanwhile the opposition gets fed up of being out of power and makes someone leader (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron) who can win back disaffected voters and win the election. Parties here have much stronger ties to their base, the Labour party to unions and other groups for example.
But in the US things are more fluid. The Republican party was the party of Lincoln, the party of the urban north when the country split and went to war over slavery. The Democrats were the party of the slave-owning south. This persisted after the Civil War, until the 1960s when the Democrats became the party of Civil Rights, and the Republicans adopted a “Southern Strategy” to target white voters unhappy with Civil Rights and social change in general. That was forty years ago and some think a similar upheaval is due now.
Not only are political parties less grounded in the US, they don’t really exist like they do here. Parties here have a well defined structure and regularly get together to hammer out policies and positions, to choose leaders and other representatives. But in the US there is no such national organisation. Every four years they have National Conventions to nominate their candidate for president, but the actual choice happens in the primaries. They do adopt a policy platform but their candidate is free to ignore it. Members of Congress are chosen locally, often via local primaries. Once in office they choose their own leaders among themselves.
Darkflame wrote:Sadly I also am skeptical this will hurt Trump much. The problem is there will be another scandal with him along in a few minutes to distract everyone.
Theres just so much, nothing really gets focused on or stuck.
That and the whole thing is a religious matter (yay America!) and more or less nothing will shift people from their religious positions.
I mean, Trump could be filmed pissing on a burning American flag and people who would normally shoot you dead for just half that crime will rationalise it and call him a hero. Say he's putting it out or something. Claim that the only reason Hillary didn't do it is because she can't pee standing up.
VP debate on Tuesday. Not sure of the exact time but it will be evening US time so Wednesday morning here, or about 24 hours from now.
Will it be worth staying up for? I doubt it very much. There’s no Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle, no embarrassment of a choice that will add entertainment value. Probably the most fun will be watching Trump’s running mate defend Trump, which is impossible for any normal person to do. But he will be surely far better prepared than Trump was and so will have an answer.
Next proper debate between the candidates is next week, and that should be worth watching. After the first debate went so wrong for him it’s hard to imagine how it could go worse for Trump but it could easily. He might be trying harder to undo the damage of last time, so might be more aggressive, even more unhinged.
The “town hall” format will favour Clinton who is used to such events and who is less likely to offend members of the public, as Trump might if he gets a question he does not like. He won’t have a lectern to prop himself against, so will need more stamina than last time: of the two it was Trump who flagged towards the end, Clinton who finished strong.
You know RT, as in Russia Today, is the propaganda arm of Russia’s fascist government and its lunatic leader? That they want Trump to win is reason enough for him to lose; Putin wants exactly the opposite of what’s best for America.
Business As Usual Politician is going to win. Racist Cheeto blew his brief and worrying moment of popularity just by being himself. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein simply aren't contenders here. Clinton can't relax until after the election, of course, but so long as she doesn't set Bernie Sanders on fire or something similar it's just a matter of holding the course.
