Clinton releases 2015 tax returns; paid 34% effective federal rate - Polidicks

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;50877296]I never got the whole "they only donated to write it off on their taxes!" argument. They're still ultimately losing money anyway, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the extra cash you get back in your return probably doesn't even come close to what you donated.[/QUOTE] Correct. It's always better to have a higher taxable income.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877266]I don't need to prove a politician is corrupt to be taken serious, [/QUOTE] Fuck yes you need to prove your claim that the Clinton’s income is sourced from political corruption. I don't want vague Clinton Foundation nonsense I want a specific paper trail.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877315]Fuck yes you need to prove your claim that the Clinton’s income is sourced from political corruption. I don't want vague Clinton Foundation nonsense I want a specific paper trail.[/QUOTE] Let me elaborate... I dont need to prove anything when the FBI tried to open several investigations on her and the foundation that orbits her, and was countered by the DoJ. Il trust the FBI, and their rapports. But even then, its up to the politician to prove they are not corrupt for public opinion... if a politician cannot defend themselves (like trump not releasing his taxes) then they deserve to have the worst expected against them. Thats politics

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877112]Why in gods name would you vote for Clinton just because she's semi-honest about her income tax? Clinton and Trump are both god awful candidates. Vote for Stein or Johnson.[/QUOTE] Yes lets vote for an anti-vaccer or an anarchist

[QUOTE=abcpea;50877385]Yes lets vote for an anti-vaccer or an anarchist[/QUOTE] Stein isn't an anti-vaxxer, she just said that if we want anti-vaxxers to stop being idiots, we should take their concerns seriously.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50877398]Stein isn't an anti-vaxxer, she just said that if we want anti-vaxxers to stop being idiots, we should take their concerns seriously.[/QUOTE] Their 'concerns' are based on lies, propaganda, unscientific studies and the shit the media peddles out occasionally. I'm not going to treat anti-vaxxers seriously if anti-vaxxers really believe autism is cased by vaccines, or you believe that autism is so terrible you'd rather let your child die or spread horrible, horrible diseases.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877241]Whether or not Clinton represents the "vast majority of the Democrat manifesto" doesn't change the fact that she's a terrible fucking person. This has been proven time and time again by various means, including excerpts from the secret service agents/police/soldiers tasked with protecting her, her aids, emails, etc. Not to mention she is a walking security risk, because she [i]keeps fucking up with classified information.[/i] She touts fairness/equality among the classes, but acts like someone sitting in their ivory tower looking down on the common folk like a disease. If you want to vote for someone that follows the "vast majority of democratic manifesto" vote for Jill Stein. She's a genuinely good person and indicators are pointing to the fact that this election JUST MIGHT BE the one where a third party has a chance of winning the presidency.[/QUOTE] Jill Stein has no experience in elected office [I]of any kind[/I], or in the military or any other kind of political office whatsoever. She is a doctor. That is immediately disqualifying for me. I like her as a person, sure, and I'd sit down and have coffee and a conversation with her and enjoy my time, [i]but she has no political experience[/i]. I agree with a lot of her views on a lot of things - but [i]fewer[/i] than I agree with Hillary's views. I don't want to abolish borders. I don't think GMOs are dangerous. And so on. The last time we elected someone who "seemed like a good guy you could have a beer with" we got into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. I will [I]never[/I] vote for someone who has never held any kind of political office. I respect Stein quite a bit, but I won't vote for her. "Being a good person" is less qualifying for a presidency than having decades of political experience and the capability to [i]run a country[/i]. I'd rather have a mediocre person who is an incredible leader than a really nice person who can't lead for shit. FDR cheated on his wife multiple times, [I]consistently[/I], throughout his life - does him being a liar and unfaithful to his wife say anything about his ability to lead a country? Clearly not. I don't want a normal honest good person who seems like they'd be nice to hang out with, I want a highly-educated, highly-motivated, qualified, exceptionally-skilled leader. Unfortunately, Hillary's the closest thing we have this election. Also, a third party will not win this election. There's about a 1% chance they'll win a single electoral vote. Maybe next election.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50877398]Stein isn't an anti-vaxxer, she just said that if we want anti-vaxxers to stop being idiots, we should take their concerns seriously.[/QUOTE] How unreasonable of her, to the fucking gallows... Science and the scientific community is going through a crisis atm, a crisis of unwarranted distrust and they are handling it like a priest caught with a quire boy in his trousers... We need to find a way to bring these people back on level, taking them serious and funding/overseeing their research is one way to do it. I dont know if it will work but we need people to take this problem seriously and bridge the gaps. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50877420]Their 'concerns' are based on lies, propaganda, unscientific studies and the shit the media peddles out occasionally. I'm not going to treat anti-vaxxers seriously if anti-vaxxers really believe autism is cased by vaccines, or you believe that autism is so terrible you'd rather let your child die or spread horrible, horrible diseases.[/QUOTE] The people that believe these lies still matter, you can try to ignore then and say they are 'just the crazies' but they wont go away and anti vaxxing and gmo fear has only risen because of this treatment. We need dialogue, make these people understand REALLY understand how the scientific method is in their best intentions.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877264]You might wanna do some research before you say the third party candidates don't have a[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530251]chance[/url] this year. The fuck-a-pa-looza that Clinton/Trump has spawned has made the 3rd party candidates look like the only logical choice for a LOT of people. I think you'll be surprised.[/QUOTE] Johnson may get enough votes to inflict some damage (not win the presidency - at all) to Trump (and perhaps Clinton to some degree), but Jill Stein won't get shit, and if you like Clinton's policies (and what else is there to like) why would you ever vote for Johnson? Look at the current polls including third parties. Neither of them have a chance. If you think so, you haven't done your research.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50877470]Johnson may get enough votes to inflict some damage (not win the presidency - at all) to Trump (and perhaps Clinton to some degree), but Jill Stein won't get shit, and if you like Clinton's policies (and what else is there to like) why would you ever vote for Johnson? Look at the current polls including third parties. Neither of them have a chance. If you think so, you haven't done your research.[/QUOTE] At this point the question isn't [i]who[/i] is going to win - it's [I]by how much[/I] Hillary will win. Johnson will be a spoiler for Trump and Stein hasn't even appeared as a blip on any reliable polls. The question now is "Will Hillary win by 4 points or 20?"

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50877483]At this point the question isn't [i]who[/i] is going to win - it's [I]by how much[/I] Hillary will win. Johnson will be a spoiler for Trump and Stein hasn't even appeared as a blip on any reliable polls. The question now is "Will Hillary win by 4 points or 20?"[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Clinton will win, but 538 still assigns Trump some chance of winning, so I'm not gonna commit hubris here. On the flip side, the scenario of Clinton winning in a landslide (maybe with 15%) is as likely as Trump winning right now basically.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877431]The people that believe these lies still matter, you can try to ignore then and say they are 'just the crazies' but they wont go away and anti vaxxing and gmo fear has only risen because of this treatment. We need dialogue, make these people understand REALLY understand how the scientific method is in their best intentions.[/QUOTE] From every discussion I've seen of this, no matter how much evidence you show them, no matter how much you discredit the bogus 'reports' on the issue, no matter how hard you prove that there is nothing to fear from vaccines or GMO - the vast majority of these people are too entrenched in their positions to admit their wrong, for whatever reason, since they've already latched onto something incredibly illogical. Far as I'm concerned, you move on from those people and you just ensure the level of education is good enough that 99% of people actually grow up to respect the scientific method and critically evaluate evidence.

Jill Steins VP is also absolutely hilarious [media]https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/762001880579014656[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/762006955854536704[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/762007946582712320[/media]

I really disliked him for siding with Assad, but defending Milošević?! Now I hate him!