Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you even watch the debate at all? The moderators inserted their own opinions trashing the candidates personally, or on their proposals, and argued with the candidates if the candidates dared not agree with their low opinions of them. I mean the first question was essentially, tell us why you are not qualified to be president so everyone can use it against you in a sound byte.
For example, they did not ask the candidates to explain to the people the details of their tax plan. The mods told the candidates how awful their tax plan was, how experts also say how awful their tax plan is, and then interrupted the candidates answer to disagree with them and reiterate how stupid their plan was.
Essentially, the moderators hated or despised everyone on that stage, tried their best to make them all look stupid, and mean-spirited, and made sure all of America saw them try to do it too.
If that's so, why didn't they, or any one of them call it for what it was and walk off the stage? It's all an act, perpetrated by everyone from the RNC/DNC to CNBC/FOX/CNN. It's to make you believe there is still legitimacy in the national election process.
If Carson's or Cruz's 10% flat tax does not start until a person earns $36,000, seems like the lower incomes escape paying a lot of income taxes.
If Carson proposed a 10% flat income tax on all incomes, total federal receipts from that tax would be ~$600 billion. You could not fund current military spending with a balanced budget on that amount. The giant hole in the deficit would only expand if he exempted individuals (or households) under $36,000. That would be a fiscal nightmare.
Federal spending in 2015 is ~$3.69 trillion. If you want a balanced budget on a flat income tax, you need that tax to be more than 50%. Nationwide household income is a little over $6 trillion. If you're willing to give on the balanced budget, add non-income taxes, and add cuts to the big 3: SS, Medicare, and Defense, then you could probably make do with a 20% flat tax.
But you would have huge risks. Taxation creates myriad incentives, including incentives to spend on infrastructure and construction (via accelerated depreciation), and incentives to save for retirement (via 401k tax deferral).
True, but Paul is the one who grandstanded last night on the meme that he was going back to Washington today to filibuster the bill, even knowing that he missed his only real chance to stop it by not being present in Washington when the bill arrived in the Senate earlier in the week. I don't believe Paul is an idiot. I think he knew full well he couldn't effectively filibuster anything, but he lied and claimed he could anyway.
He didn't grandstand and he didn't lie. He's not the one lying here.
He's already been on the floor once. In order to stop him the Senate needs 60 votes. Anyone who votes to stop him will be exposed as being for the horrible spending bill. He's going to be back on the Senate floor again tonite.
Paul has asked his colleagues to donate their time – each senator is allowed one hour but can speak longer if others agree to let him have their hours – to would allow him to delay the vote on final passage further into the morning. “This filibuster will go on to about 1 in the morning and then we will find out who the true conservatives in this town are,” Paul said shortly after coming onto the Senate floor. “If you are a conservative, you will say, 'There is no way I’m going to vote to give an unlimited power to the president to borrow money.”
Yeah, that’s the rap but if it is “unscientific" then it is unscientific for everyone. Why would it be wrong just for Trump? If as some have mentioned it is simply a vote for your favorite candidate, then Trump must have been on top going in, which goes against the grain of what the media have been telling us. He had some good moments but I guess I am used to the old Trump.
It's not scientific but scientific polls are often wrong but it still says something when Trump gets 70% in nearly all of them with the rest splitting the other 30%.
Because Trump is the only candidate who immediately puts a link to the poll on his twitter. All twitter followers vote, there's the win.
Chris Christie clearly won the debate.
I was curious how he did this. Should have been obvious that he found a way to cheat somehow. Never trusted those website polls anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
