Crooked Hillary cannot win.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/03/watch-hillary-says-were-going-raise-taxes-middle-class
this bitch said she wanted to raise taxes on the rich and middle class. Some idiots applauded but I think she pulled the last straw. The more people attack Trump, the more support he gets. What doesn't stump you makes you stronger

@francisco: Clinton's pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k/year, since the start of the Dem primaries. Even the clip in the Trump ad has her specifically saying "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class." The ad just (deliberately?) mis-captions that as "are."

Listen to the clip again. Or read this comment chain: https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/761297801447821312

IMHO, massively dishonest for Trump to straight-up miscaption a clip like that. If you don't believe me, you can just head to her site and read her economic plans. Have fun.

@OP: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just don't want you to go into shock in November.

Edited 8/5/2016 10:34:54

Even if she wasn't going to increase taxes on people making under $250k/year, I still disagree with the statement that she would increase taxes on the rich. I understand that the spread of money is really unequal but taxing the rich just punishes success, what we really need is to stop all the big corporations from abusing loopholes in the system and increase small and medium business grants.

Read Clinton's economic policies then (pretty easy to find on her site- https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/), because a large chunk of them does exactly that. "Closing loopholes" is the same as raising the effective tax rate on high-earning Americans.

Specifically, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/. Her tax policy toward the rich is to get them to pay around the same effective tax rate as middle-class Americans.

If I get a third taken off the top of each paycheck and Romney- who makes way more than I do- only pays 14%, well, even if you back a flat tax system and oppose progressive taxes, that's unfair.

But then again, neither of us is an economic expert- and there's intricacies in her policies you can't pick up by reading her website. So it's a great thing that there's a bunch of independent agencies with proven records analyzing her economic policy- like Moody's, who have her creating 13 million more jobs over 4 years than Trump (+10 million vs -3 million).

13 million's a big number. That's a job for nearly everyone who voted for Trump in the primaries. More than one for each Bernie voter. Larger than the population of Los Angeles. Larger than most state populations. Even if you're on the "let's burn it to the ground" train, seems like this is just a huge difference imho. I'm not fond of throwing 13 million Americans under the bus just so I can walk out of this election feeling like I stuck it to the man.

Edited 8/5/2016 10:44:03

If I get a third taken off the top of each paycheck and Romney- who makes way more than I do- only pays 14%, well, even if you back a flat tax system and oppose progressive taxes, that's unfair.

I don't care if you're the most far left person out there, the fact is this literally makes no sense. Currently income taxes are really lopsided, with the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of taxes. In fact, well over a third of taxes (38%) are payed by just the top 1%. This is contrasted with the bottom 50%, A bracket which is 50x larger, who only pay 3% of all income taxes.

@OP: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just don't want you to go into shock in November.

Here's a map showing all the states where leads are within the margin of error (the striped ones):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#/media/File:General_election_polls_2016_Clinton_v_Trump.svg

Since Clinton definitely has 222 electoral votes and trump definitely has 133, the 159 where the difference is within the margin of error could swing the election either way. IMO it's a little arrogant of all these forecasts to show clinton ahead in all these states, and definitely shows some bias.

@Imperator: The top 10% also controls >75% of wealth. Look at Romney's tax returns- he paid an effective rate of 14%. There are plenty of loopholes for wealthier people that aren't open to the rest of us- just ask Mossack Fonsecca.

Also, FiveThirtyEight correctly called 49 states in 2008 and all 50 in 2012. I wouldn't call them presumptive. I'd call them educated. Clinton's getting double-digit leads in swing-state polls right now. Unless a miracle happens, Trump's out.

If you disagree with me on that, I'm open to bets.

Edited 8/5/2016 14:05:23

The top 10% also controls >75% of wealth. Look at Romney's tax returns- he paid an effective rate of 14%. There are plenty of loopholes for wealthier people that aren't open to the rest of us- just ask Mossack Fonsecca.

Nobody is as far as I know taxing wealth, what is taxed is income. Now I'm not sure if you're one of those dudes who just discounts wikipedia offhand, but I'm sure you can find another source for these if you want:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax#Income_taxes

The top 1% only control 22% of all income, yet pay 38% of all taxes, which definitely is lopsided. Meanwhile the bottom 50% control 11% yet only pay 3% of all taxes, which is again pretty lopsided.

Also, FiveThirtyEight correctly called 49 states in 2008 and all 50 in 2012. I wouldn't call them presumptive. I'd call them educated. Clinton's getting double-digit leads in swing-state polls right now. Unless a miracle happens, Trump's out.

The model is far from finalized since there are more than three months until the election. Just last week fivethirtyeight called a 55% chance of trump winning the election, which turned around pretty quickly.

If you disagree with me on that, I'm open to bets.

I'm not calling the election either way right now, just saying that you probably shouldn't be so certain about it either :)

@Imperator: Last week was the Now-cast, which is the most reactive model and does not factor in convention bounces. Polls-plus does- and it kept Clinton in the lead.

Per FiveThirtyEight's own analysis, August is when the polls + their forecast starts getting good. We'll have to wait another week for Clinton's convention bump to fade but once that's over... well, it's not gonna fall below 50% if it's at 75-92% now.

The bottom 50% also spend a lot more of their income for living costs. Taxing them at the same rate as the top 1%- who don't even have the same absolute cost of living- would make it even harder to climb the economic ladder.

But this isn't about the 1% as a whole. It's about closing loopholes that not all of them exploit and getting tough on tax evasion.

Edited 8/5/2016 14:25:59

Last week was the Now-cast, which is the most reactive model and does not factor in convention bounces. Polls-plus does- and it kept Clinton in the lead.

More like it only factors in RNC bumps. Straight after the DNC on the 30th, it started tanking trump in all three forecasts, including the Polls-plus.

The bottom 50% also spend a lot more of their income for living costs. Taxing them at the same rate as the top 1%- who don't even have the same absolute cost of living- would make it even harder to climb the economic ladder.

They aren't taxed at the same rate. Currently tax brackets of 28%, 33%, 35% and 39.6% are applied to incomes above $91,150.

Edited 8/5/2016 14:38:22

Hillary Clinton has no opinions, values or beliefs.

She is a poll statistics regurgitator. All she ever has been, all she ever will be.

When the polls say exterminate a race, she'll exterminate the race. When the polls say that drake is a big hit among youths, she'll hit up drake for an endorsement.

I don't support donald per se, but he speaks his mind and maintains opinions on the things he seems to value the most, similar to Bernie sanders. Yet all hillary does is say gay marriage is bad one year then support it when it's hip. She voted for Iraq, not even Bernie did that, trump didn't support it either.

Why would you trust a person to be our leader when she's by definition a follower? When she's a pancake? When they are incompetent by all means and riddled with scandals?

In old times, if you were highly controversial, you didn't get to be royalty. You would probably be assassinated or exiled. Yet we welcome such folk into public office now.

If she can't protect some people in Benghazi, why would we let her protect 400 million people.

The logic is nowhere to be found.

Crooked Hillary will regurgitate whatever polls say. Unless she can cash in, of course. Then she can even ignore polls.

You know who let Putin buy 20% of US nuclear energy? Crooked Hillary Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

You may ask. Karl may or may not answer.

Yeah, why don't poor people just decide to not be poor?

you make me think that not everybody should have freedom of speech

I think we can learn something about Trump from his enemies, and the majority seem to absolutely despicable. Clinton, Bush Republicans, the media, the military brass, all these folk are just awful, and it makes me kinda like Trump.

Anyway, Clinton will likely deploy ground troops to Syria(since Al-Qaeda can't keep fighting her battles), and have the US army at the gates of Moskva. That's enough of a reason to not vote for her, unless you're an absolute immoral person.

Edited 8/5/2016 16:14:53

Or, idk, if you're the kind of person that gets their news and analyses from places that aren't sketchy blogs with either no citations or citations that literally say the exact opposite of what they're claiming they say.

But you do you, I guess.

Or, idk, if you're the kind of person that gets their news and analyses from places that aren't sketchy blogs with either no citations or citations that literally say the exact opposite of what they're claiming they say.

But you do you, I guess.


You get your news from the US government, I'd say I have the more accurate pieces of news. Anyway, I have provided evidence for Clinton supporting Al-Qaeda to fight Assad.

If you need it again, here you go:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

I thought Trump had a 25% chance of winning. After the most recent events, I lower it to 15% now.

Anyways neither will be good presidents, but Clinton will likely run the show pretty much like Obama did. Lots of talks about women rights, black lives matter or gun control while close to no nothing will change.

Trump in the other side is a wildcard we don't know what he will do, and I'm seriously concerned of how he will handle the nuclear arsenal. Will he decide to bomb Beijing if China insulted his hair? Invade Mexico if they don't pay for his useless wall? We can't say. For all purposes stick with the devil you know.