Bill Maher Explains the Problem with Trumpism 5 Years Ago

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Juri proving he doesn't support the wall street elitists by supporting wall street elitists.

I'm not letting Trump put another regressive asshole like Scalia on the court who will uphold our corrupt money grubbing campaign finance system.

Clinton is Reagan lite. After this election (maybe the next one), her way of doing things in the democrat party go with her

[R Flair]

Reagan lite. Someone got haf tonight

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RzlUjE_Lo

It's only 4.5 minutes.

Trump hasn't offered any real plans to address wealth inequality. Some gibberish about bringing back jobs...as if there's any rolling the clock back on that. Unless he is about to contradict his entire history as a person, he's just saying that to get you working / middle class rubes to elect him.

So what did those private investigators find out about Obama's birth certificate again?

How is that conservative justice going to help us get big money out of politics?

hmmm

I'd much sooner believe he'd build the wall.

Good post and tagging for response later.

[Daywolf]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

wat

[Daywolf]

even longer. It is what it is.

[Nihilist_santa]

JD Clinton was pro TPP until recently (which just means its lip service) so how exactly is she offering to help the "wealth inequality" problem.

I work in an industry with many union workers in a right to work state. The majority of them that I have spoken to (various ethnic groups) have all stated they are supporting Trump this go around for reasons like TPP and coal power plants and other issues which have taken away middle class low barrier to entry jobs. They are all pissed about being burned by Obama and the dems this last go around.

Many union workers in other areas are watching their jobs being sent to Mexico. Which candidate is offering to make a course correction with Mexico and China which will benefit our workers?

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

JD Clinton was pro TPP until recently (which just means its lip service) so how exactly is she offering to help the "wealth inequality" problem.

I work in an industry with many union workers in a right to work state. The majority of them that I have spoken to (various ethnic groups) have all stated they are supporting Trump this go around for reasons like TPP and coal power plants and other issues which have taken away middle class low barrier to entry jobs. They are all pissed about being burned by Obama and the dems this last go around.

Many union workers in other areas are watching their jobs being sent to Mexico. Which candidate is offering to make a course correction with Mexico and China which will benefit our workers?

What industry for the union?

[surron]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RzlUjE_Lo

It's only 4.5 minutes.

Trump hasn't offered any real plans to address wealth inequality. Some gibberish about bringing back jobs...as if there's any rolling the clock back on that. Unless he is about to contradict his entire history as a person, he's just saying that to get you working / middle class rubes to elect him.

So what did those private investigators find out about Obama's birth certificate again?

How is that conservative justice going to help us get big money out of politics?

hmmm

I'd much sooner believe he'd build the wall.

IDK if this is still part of his plan but he was going to change the tax brackets. Which fucking suck for me atm.

this is 2016 single filers

10%
$0 to $9,275
15%
$9,275 to $37,650
25%
$37,650 to $91,150
28%
$91,150 to $190,150
33%
$190,150 to $413,350
35%
$413,350 to $415,050
39.6%
$415,050+


I sit in 25%. Look at that fucking jump at $37k. $37k is high end lower class. That 25% man that fucking RAPES lower class and lower-middle class. I sit at $60k now but damn does that 25% hurt me. No way should someone making $90k be paying the same percentage as someone making $37k thats like the majority of every single american sits in that range. and a $90k lifestyle is WAY different than a $37k lifestyle

Here's Trumps bracket plan

Taxable income: Rate
Less than $75,000 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000 25%
More than $225,000 33%

thats like a fucking 13% pay raise for me if hes elected (if he actually does this.) (of course once I make $75k that will hurt, or maybe ill just deny $75k and stay at $74k if this tax bracket plan really makes it in)

[Lune]

Originally Posted by surron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's Trumps bracket plan

Taxable income: Rate
Less than $75,000 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000 25%
More than $225,000 33%

If you honestly think Congress is going to pass a tax plan anything like that, I feel for you, I really do.

Republicans may bitch about Democrat spending until they are blue in the face, but it's just a front, and it's directly mainly at certain kinds of entitlements. The Republican House/Senate will NOT lower taxes because that disrupts a few things they find really important:

1. Military spending - Most of them are beholden to contractors or have some kind of military base in their district, and will continue to bloat the military whether the military asks for resources or not.

2. Corporate subsidies - Especially agriculture is the sole reason certain rural Republicans were given their seat by local agribusinesses.

3. Medicare - They will bitch about socialism while defending medicare to the death, because they know nobody is allowed to make cuts to this ''popular'' program and keep their seat.

Honestly this is what we get for not nominating a candidate who sought to address the root of the problem, which is basically that our politicians do not represent our interests, but the interests of those with money and influence.