The Trump Thread!!! - Part 1

[hippie_hunter]

I expect Trump to shine in the debate again. Those who attack Trump are going to be taken down a peg, as their record has some holes in it, and Donald has the style and knowledge to make them look worse.

[YT]PVVDCOWhpE0[/YT]

 

[InCali]

Many people will be happy if Trump closes the hedgefund tax loophole. Something the Democrats won't do. I also expect the black vote for Trump to be (abnormally) higher than the usual Republican candidate, if he is nominated.

Ya.....we've got black folk lining up to vote for Trump on the condition that he close the hedge fund tax loophole. (Just joking. I know you weren't linking the two).

I sincerely doubt the black community ends up supporting Donald Trump to any significant degree and I promise you Mexican Americans ain't gonna show up for him. I haven't looked at the polls (and polls aren't that important at this point in time), but I don't see it. If push came to shove and he was running against Hillary, I think the Clinton name in the African American community is as close as you can get to the gold standard (Bill being the main reason). If you look at the Bernie Sanders platform and Trump's past practices (I don't have much of an idea about what line of BS he's spouting now), Trump loses by a wide margin.

 

[DeadPresident]

Also, "lol" @ Trump closing any tax loopholes, you must be out of your mind.

 

[SV Fan]

Many people will be happy if Trump closes the hedgefund tax loophole. Something the Democrats won't do. I also expect the black vote for Trump to be (abnormally) higher than the usual Republican candidate, if he is nominated.

I must say Trump has a much better message about the hedgefund loophole then Obama did in 2012

 

[Paradoxium]

He has a raging ***** against that hedgefund loophole. Word on the street is the establishment conservatives will use this "against" him. I actually agree with him on that, it should be closed.

 

[InCali]

Also, "lol" @ Trump closing any tax loopholes, you must be out of your mind.

Who knows what he's saying now that he's running?? I'll probably start following this sometime before the primaries start next year, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear him or anyone else who's running change their position on any given policy if they thought it would help them get elected.

 

[SV Fan]

He has a raging ***** against that hedgefund loophole. Word on the street is the establishment conservatives will use this "against" him. I actually agree with him on that, it should be closed.

The only people who might be offended with his stance against the hedgefund loophole are people who benefit from it. If the establishment think it's a good issue to use against him they are wrong when it comes to the common man(now it does hurt when you looking at the donor class)

 

[InCali]

He has a raging ***** against that hedgefund loophole. Word on the street is the establishment conservatives will use this "against" him. I actually agree with him on that, it should be closed.

Why just hedge fund loophole? What about other corporate loopholes?

 

[SV Fan]

Why just hedge fund loophole? What about other corporate loopholes?

Hedgefund loophole is one that is easy to explain

 

[Paradoxium]

I don't know if he will or will not close other loopholes. I do know he should close that one (at least), because that loophole pisses off many people. I doubt many in this forum are against it either.

Personally I'd close loopholes first before raising taxes. It wouldn't be a hard sell for most people.

 

[Paradoxium]

The only people who might be offended with his stance against the hedgefund loophole are people who benefit from it. If the establishment think it's a good issue to use against him they are wrong when it comes to the common man(now it does hurt when you looking at the donor class)

I think it will be some spin job. Simple rhetoric like tax happy liberal for the common joe on the street. The donor class is another story as you correctly noted.

 

[InCali]

Hedgefund loophole is one that is easy to explain

What I'm asking is why, if it's true, that Trump says he would close it. What kind of bug does he have.

 

[DeadPresident]

Something like the hedgefund loophole is the tip of the iceberg and not that consequential in the larger economic picture. It would be a great way for Trump to do something without actually doing anything, but he wouldn't ever do it.

 

[InCali]

Something like the hedgefund loophole is the tip of the iceberg and not that consequential in the larger economic picture. It would be a great way for Trump to do something without actually doing anything, but he wouldn't ever do it.

Yeah. I would be a shame if we went back to the corporate tax rate of the 1950s and 60s because it caused the economy to tank. t:

Correlation is not causality, but the distribution of wealth is ridiculous.

 

[Paradoxium]

Raising taxes is meaningless if the richest can dodge it. They have the resources to do so. While smaller or more honest competitors get ****ed.

Want a poster child of this? See Apple.

Loopholes and international taxation are huge issues neither party will touch.

 

[SV Fan]

What I'm asking is why, if it's true, that Trump says he would close it. What kind of bug does he have.

If you say you will lower taxes for the middle class and will counter that money lost by closing the hedgefund loophole. Who would be against that(other then people who benefit off the hedgefund loophole). Trump is basically setting a trap for other Republicans to defend the 10% of people that might benefit off that loophole being out of touch with the common man

 

[InCali]

It's true that paying "some" taxes can be dodged. If you are saying that raising taxes wouldn't raise revenue, I'll disagree with that whether "some" taxes are dodged or not. I "dodge" taxes by charitable contributions, making repairs on rental property, etc. If my taxes went up, I'd still "dodge" some taxes, but would pay more.

 

[summerteeth]

S


The thing is though (and this is counter intuitive), 1 trillion dollars =/= 1 trillion dollars - it depends on where you spend it. Defense spending is a short term stimulus that doesn't really do anything to create new jobs or spenders in the economy. Defense contractors are all established and operate in a market with obscene barriers to entry. If 1 trillion dollars is spent on SME's though it'll generate new jobs, populating them with people who may have been economically inactive, which will create a cycle of spending on goods and services that has a more stimulating effect than just shoving hundreds of millions of dollars back into the accounts of Lockheed where they probably don't see the "real economy" that every Tom, Dick and Harry are participating in.

.

Missing the point I was making. You keep making the assumption that the money would have been borrowed and spent elsewhere and into other investments. That's a huuuuge assumption especially given the difficulty they had passing a trillion dollar stimulus package. Now if you are saying they should spend that money on other things that's another argument entirely and doesn't make the Iraq War a contributing factor.

Sure. Believe what you will.

You are the one who brought up economists

 

[DeadPresident]

Missing the point I was making. You keep making the assumption that the money would have been borrowed and spent elsewhere and into other investments. That's a huuuuge assumption especially given the difficulty they had passing a trillion dollar stimulus package. Now if you are saying they should spend that money on other things that's another argument entirely and doesn't make the Iraq War a contributing factor.

Fair enough, but I've got to ask serious questions about a government that would borrow for a war and not borrow to try and fortify the economy, but I see what you're saying.

 

[InCali]

Missing the point I was making. You keep making the assumption that the money would have been borrowed and spent elsewhere and into other investments. That's a huuuuge assumption especially given the difficulty they had passing a trillion dollar stimulus package. Now if you are saying they should spend that money on other things that's another argument entirely and doesn't make the Iraq War a contributing factor.



You are the one who brought up economists

Yup. And your point is??? You're the one who said what you believe to be the case and I simply said you are entitled to your belief.

 

[DeadPresident]

Agreeing.

In another life, I was a statistician and did a brief stint teaching statistical analysis and probability (as well as some sociology classes on the effects of the Media) at the University of California. If you want to talk about manipulation to make a point, I can talk to you about statistics all day. The reason I bring this up because there is a concept in statistics (this is a real thing by the way and is generally seen in multiple regression analysis) called "interaction between variables" and these interactions can lead to significant misunderstandings.

For example, IF you had a significant economic collapse and IF, by some wild chance, you had 3 or 4 significant dependent (predictive) variables and IF you used an independent ("predicted" for lack of a better word that I can think of right now) variable that made sense and IF you didn't leave anything significant out of the equation.......(okay, I think you're probably getting the point now.....this MAY not be completely reliable when it comes to determining the effects of variables in an economic collapse), the variables you selected could interact in very unexpected ways. That is to say, they might not have linear relationships with each other. Adding one variable or deleting one variable can significantly change the interactions between the other variables. This could lead you to dramatically over or understate the effects of the variables you used to predict some occurrence.

That and the fact that when people use after the fact variables that fit what has already occurred, it renders their predictive value virtually meaningless because there are a ton of things you can pull out of the air that will fit the model and some may have no value whatsoever.....think about "Every year that the Redskins win at home on the weekend before the presidential election, this or that party wins....every year they lose, the other party wins......" These are after the fact observations that likely have no effect on anything. Now statisticians (generally speaking) aren't quite THAT sloppy, but some do a pretty good job of obfuscation.

OK. Everyone can wake up now.....

Interesting. You're essentially talking about General Systems Theory, which is quite a foreign concept to most people.

 

[InCali]

Interesting. You're essentially talking about General Systems Theory, which is quite a foreign concept to most people.

If you think my post was interesting, you are most likely the only one on this thread that thinks so. In addition, you may require professional help.

I did a paper on the mathematical elimination of extraneous variables from multiple regression formulas that, in part, used the interactions between variables to determine whether or not a particular variable had any predictive value. The problem is that you never know whether or not you've got the correct variables in your formula. If you are missing one or more, then you're kind of hosed.

A rather funny example of this (please excuse the repetition as I once posted this on another thread) is when I decided to try and use multiple regression to predict the outcome of the horse races. My stepfather was into the ponies and I decided I could maybe be some help. I gathered all of these "important" variables, ran them through SPSS, and (of course) couldn't get anything to work.

I showed my stepfather my list of variables and asked him if he thought I was missing anything. He took one look at it and said "Yeah. Whether or not the owner wants his horse to win or not". I had assumed that was always the case, but now I know better.

Garbage in -> Garbage out

 

[Pink Ranger]

A rather funny example of this (please excuse the repetition as I once posted this on another thread) is when I decided to try and use multiple regression to predict the outcome of the horse races. My stepfather was into the ponies and I decided I could maybe be some help. I gathered all of these "important" variables, ran them through SPSS, and (of course) couldn't get anything to work.

I showed my stepfather my list of variables and asked him if he thought I was missing anything. I took one look at it and said "Yeah. Whether or not the owner wants his horse to win or not". I had assumed that was always the case, but now I know better.

Garbage in -> Garbage out

 

[Legendver2]

So much for Trump shining tonight

 

[InCali]

So much for Trump shining tonight

I can't bring myself to watch at this point. I suspect that prediction didn't pan out too well??

Whatsay Taarna? Was he awesome? Was he manly? Did he put those lousy, illegal immigrant loving republicans in their places? Maybe show off his mastery of foreign policy?