Oh Wilbur...

[ERICOPOLY]

The accusation that I am making self serving arguments is the most pathetic and weakest claim against me.

 

The MAJORITY of my wealth is in my Roth IRA.

 

Like...

 

if I were a self-serving man...

 

THE VERY LAST THING I WOULD WANT IS A SALES TAX!!!!

 

That is the ONLY tax (other than a property tax) that I can't hide from.

 

So any kind of suggestion that I'm suggesting to swap one regressive tax for another in order to be SELF SERVING is an obvious attempt just to piss me off by a sick and deranged individual (who is probably stalking me because that's what sick bitches do).

 

 

I could ask for a sky-high income tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett).

I could ask for a sky-high capital gains tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett).

I could ask for a sky-high dividend tax (won't affect me much at all, just like Buffett).

 

I mean, those are taxes I could ask to be raised but they don't affect my Roth IRA at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What a load of bullshit and crap this guy is insinuation.  Get a therapist dude!!!

 

I actually in my heart believe that a SALES TAX is about the only way that you can get me to pay more taxes at this point in the game.

 

So... you accuse me of serving myself????  You are such a TOOL!

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Dude, cmon, the council tax in Australia IS dependent on the value of the property.

 

I don't think it scales the way our property tax does -- but I've never seen the calculation.  I just remember my father talking about "rates" as just like a few thousand dollars a year on a $2m home in Sydney that my grandmother lived in.  So I was telling him that Australia has no property tax and he said "well they have rates" -- I said, okay but on an annual basis that feels more like a utility bill by comparison.  I mean, people easily spend that much on a cell phone annually.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Also you bring up Santa Barbara here. A city in which only 40% of homes are owner occupied and 60% are rented. Which is 1: Not representative for the US as a whole and not even for California as a state. And 2: maybe the dynamics there are such that renters do get a good deal and so they choose to rent. Free market and all that. I also don't see why the landlord or the home owner are always entitled to a good deal. Sometimes it's better to sell the place and rent. It seems to be so in Santa Barbara and residents seem to agree.

 

Correct, I brought up an example.  By definition an example is not representative of big general conclusions so I don't need to be instructed as such -- could save everyone a lot of time if you could start by assuming I don't need to be told that the sky is blue, the river is wet, et.... 

 

I chose that specific example because I don't want to speak of other examples where I don't have specific knowledge.

 

The reason why I do this, is because I think there must be a way to more accurately tax people on their real economic gains.  I mean surely, you want to be fair to people -- ideally I'd want to figure out the correct tax structure and have everyone pay the tax that they should pay under that "correct" system.  So by pointing out examples how tax rates are lumpy for different people and how they aren't actually what they believe them to be, then anyone who is interested in achieving better consistency might be drawn into a conversation about how a more consistent tax scheme can be achieved through tinkering with the way we do things.

 

There are plenty of examples about other areas where tax rates are much lower than people commonly believe (like the example I gave you of people converting their "income" into capital gains in Australia to lower their tax rates).  I mean, you don't want that kind of crap to go on, do you?  Right, well likewise once we decide what rate "rich" people should pay, we want them to pay it.  We don't want to accidentally design a system where the tax rate is far in excess (for some assets) than what we intended.  You can set a rate that you think is high, but it's best if the rate is actually at that level and not surprisingly much higher.

 

 

You've yelled 60% is too high for investment property in Santa Barbara. Ok, we've heard you.

 

I am saying it is 60% and it is high.  I really am leaving it up for debate if it is "too" high.  Okay? 

 

Like if I said 15% was a low tax rate.  It's low.  It is low.  Not "too" low.  And not low "enough".  Just, "low" and nothing else added to it.

[ERICOPOLY]

You quote those tax rates for Australia which I assume you say that they are either high or regressive.

 

I don't say that they are high or regressive.  They are just the rates that I posted.  I did say, however, that if I were to propose we adopt that same tax structure here in the US that people would be accusing me of that very same thing.

 

Like, for example, you already said that Australia is fair because they have a progressive tax structure.

 

Okay, so if we get a progressive tax structure just like them, and we also get rid of the inheritance tax and gift tax just like them... and we replace our property tax rates with their "council tax" rates...

 

Then will you agree that our society will be fair like theirs?  And yes, provide their health care and everything else so that people are getting something back.

 

See, what I am getting at is that you and I can both see that their society is pretty happy, yet they don't have to rob people of money they've already saved and paid tax on (inheritance and gift taxes).  Those taxes aren't essential to have a fair society, all you need is good basic services and a progressive tax rate like theirs.  Correct or not correct?

 

 

But you fail to mention that for those taxes the Aussie blokes get free health care.

 

 

Oh yeah... right...

 

Those people making 40,000 a year and actually paying for their health care are SO FORTUNATE to be the ones on the hook for their own health care.

 

But I do think it's an example of when EVERYONE pays a significant tax rate, they all actually pay attention to the government elections and how money is spent in the government.  It's probably benefiting their democracy to have everyone with skin in the game.  Of course, if you say that in America you get slayed, so I'll let the people who enjoy throwing stones go ahead and do that now.

 

In the US, a lot of people making 40,000 a year get sick, go to emergency room, get treated, and never pay a dime.  Okay, I'm sorry for them, that sucks, and emergency care is no panacea.  But...  that's what a LOT of people do.  Some of those people may or may not want the high tax rate -- or maybe they would in exchange for the service.  But usually the way things work in this country is that when we propose higher services we raise taxes on the rich and leave the poor completely alone in the tax bracket -- your call, but feel free to propose that we raise taxes on people making $40,000 and I'll sit back and watch that other guy abuse you all night.

 

You start at 37,000. Fail to mention the other brackets

 

Hey, if I were to try to be deceptive, I wouldn't have given you a link to the information that you are feeding back to me.  Are you forgetting that I posted that link?

 

Alright, so WHY did I start ticking off the brackets beginning at 37,000?  Because the most interesting thing to me about their brackets is that our HIGHEST income tax bracket in America is roughly what their people bump into when they reach a mere $37,000 income.  Like, that's where they pick up where we left off!

 

[Cardboard]

Have you seen Hillary Clinton in Omaha with Buffett sitting right behind her and yelling?

 

"We are going to raise taxes on the middle class!"

 

And then you see poor Buffett applauding and cheering like a fool!

 

He is the most hypocrite tax evader alive. "Tax more the rich!" Yeah right, I am sure that he has already every tool at his disposal to avoid paying these new taxes.

 

Have you also watched the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting this year?

 

Have you heard directly from him that Berkshire Energy could not possibly be in the solar and wind business if it wasn't for all the subsidies?

 

Then he turns around and refuse to pay high prices from the owners of solar panels in Nevada for their excess power.

 

What is it? Subsidize me but, not others?

 

Then there is the XL pipeline which has been blocked for 8 years and many more pipelines by FERC and others. I am assuming that this didn't provide any benefit to BNSF to carry more oil via railcars?

 

There you have it Mr. Buffett. Not only are you an hypocrite on taxes and why you support these corrupt individuals but, you also have blood on your hands from 47 people who died in Lac Megantic and elsewhere from a crazy practice that you supported.

 

Cardboard

[randomep]

I've refrained from putting anything political on here, as such posts always end up in a flurry of rhetoric, but this one really made me laugh.  I love Wilbur Ross the investor, but if Americans want to know (do they even really care?) what the rest of the world is looking at and the perspective they have on what is happening in this U.S. election, this is all you need:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/video/wilbur-ross-trump-joking-khan-114100665.html

 

Every single person on this message board today, is living better than the previous generation, yet the fear this guy is permeating makes many Americans think they are still stuck in the middle of the Great Depression or in the midst of World War II. 

 

 

 

I take issue with this statement. While I see what you mean in terms of technological development, advances in certain fields, etc., it's estimated that millenials will be the first generation in a long while to NOT be better off than their parents on average.

 

 

Twocities:

 

I heard that in the media alot. But please, help me understand your thinking. What do you mean by milenials may be worse off than their parents. You seem to have some hard data to support this. Is there a link to some statistic?

 

I heard trump say crime is up, but factcheck clearly indicates that violent crime has gone down in the US for the last 2 decades.  I suspect when people say things like that there is no fact behind it except a perception.

 

This is what I can see in the life of someone born in 1965 versus 1995.

 

In the earlier generation if your caught with leukemia it was a death sentence. Now the odds are clearly with survival.  The choice is clear which generation you'd want to be in that situation.

 

Typical person living in NYC in the 70's is like living in a rat-hole. The subway system was falling apart, drugs were a huge problem, and so was crime.  Remember Bernie Goetz?  I remember driving to Buffalo from Toronto in the 80's and I thought the area was such a poor rustbelt.  But Buffalo looked really good on my last trip, much to my surprise.

 

In the 70's we had to live with smokers on planes and in public buildings. I stopped playing chess as a kid because of all the smoke. I wish I grew up now and could've played continued to play chess.  Even if you avoided cigarette smoke in buildings you still had to breath leaded gasoline from cars.

 

I also remember that being a teenager and pregnant was enough to ruin lives because it mean a life of missed opportunities and poverty. Now? We we to see reality shows showing the interesting lives of teenage moms. 

 

We did things a certain way, and whatever we did badly we improved on it. So by definition our lives would be better on the average.  We had a huge problem with molestors in the catholic church, now we stamped that out (I would hope). We have also learned that crime and punishment was hugely unjust against certain segments, because of all the exonerations due to the advent of dna technology.

 

Sorry I just cannot see how a milenial is worse off than their parents. They may have different lives and stresses, but the average person would be an idiot to want to go back in time to 30/40 yrs ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jurgis]

Sorry I just cannot see how a milenial is worse off than their parents. They may have different lives and stresses, but the average person would be an idiot to want to go back in time to 30/40 yrs ago.

 

Amen.

 

If I could be born today instead of 19XX when I was born, I'd choose to be born today. Even if I had to be born in Lithuania again. Even if I had to be born in Russia - perhaps.

 

And well, I truly believe that today's kids who live to be 50+ are likely to live forever (as in "not die unless killed") - if we don't blow up ourselves in the next 50 years.

 

[EliG]

Have you seen Hillary Clinton in Omaha with Buffett sitting right behind her and yelling?

 

"We are going to raise taxes on the middle class!"

 

Snopes:

 

Hillary Clinton: 'We're Going to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class'

 

Quote:

 

Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," but either she didn't fully enunciate the ending of the word "aren't" or the word didn't come through clearly on the audio recording (or both). Worst case, she simply misspoke and said "are" when she meant "aren't," because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy.

 

Shortly before the portion of her speech captured in the viral video, Clinton said that raising taxes on the wealthy would serve as the foundation for future investments:

 

<snip>

 

That platform of closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and providing tax relief to working families is also outlined on her campaign web site:

 

<snip>

 

A transcript of Clinton's speech stated that she said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class."

[Cardboard]

Oh wow! Like I had not figured myself this is ain't what she wanted to mention. Still does not explain the crowd not getting it??? Maybe that we will need sound analysts to determine exactly what she said...

 

And when she said: "We will put a lot of coal miner out of work!" Was that misspoken as well or else?

 

Now Elig since you are so smart can you try to rebuff the other points that I made on Buffett?

 

Cardboard

[rb]

I hate to say, but Trump train is unstoppable!

 

Truly!

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[EliG]

Oh wow! Like I had not figured myself this is ain't what she wanted to mention.

 

If so, why did you quote it?

 

 

Still does not explain the crowd not getting it???

 

Huh? Back to Snopes:

 

Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class,"

 

 

Maybe that we will need sound analysts to determine exactly what she said...

 

Yep.

 

Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics. By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."

 

 

And when she said: "We will put a lot of coal miner out of work!" Was that misspoken as well or else?

 

She used a poor wording for which she apologized later. But those who pounced on the quote took it wildly out of context.

 

NPR

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton And Coal Jobs

 

PolitiFact

In context: Hillary Clinton’s comments about coal jobs

 

 

Now Elig since you are so smart can you try to rebuff the other points that I made on Buffett?

 

No thank you, I will take a pass.

[randomep]

I hate to say, but Trump train is unstoppable!

 

Truly!

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

I think Trump will get the biggest shellacking of any presidental election in recent memory.

 

[rb]

It may be nice to think that. But i think that's wrong. The way America is right now, i think that despite all the recent polling, it'll probably look like 2012 and best case scenario for Democrats is more like 2008.

 

Does Trump deserve a huge repudiation from America? I think so. But I think in the end, I think most people will hold their noses and vote along party lines.

[randomep]

It may be nice to think that. But i think that's wrong. The way America is right now, i think that despite all the recent polling, it'll probably look like 2012 and best case scenario for Democrats is more like 2008.

 

Does Trump deserve a huge repudiation from America? I think so. But I think in the end, I think most people will hold their noses and vote along party lines.

 

so what are you saying?? Best case scenario for Democrats is a repeat of Bush beating Dukakis?  nevermind..... erroneous comment removed

 

 

 

[rb]

I appreciate the humor. Buy yea, if she wins it won't be big like that. I'd say it'll probably be around 300-330 EVs. Probably worse than 2008 for Obama. She'll probably take North Carolina, but she won't win Arizona or Georgia, and I'll be surprised if she wins Indiana, despite the fact than Mike Pence isn't exactly Mr. popular over there.

 

But I also don't think that the Democrats are going for a big blow out victory. I think they'll be strategic about it with the view that a win is a win and they'll go for a safe one rather than a flashy one.

[wknecht]

Is this thread about the presidential election? Are folks decisions really being driven by differing tax policies? To me, that seems like an irrelevant detail in the context of this election.

[Investor20]

 

 

In the earlier generation if your caught with leukemia it was a death sentence. Now the odds are clearly with survival.  The choice is clear which generation you'd want to be in that situation.

.......

.......

 

Sorry I just cannot see how a milenial is worse off than their parents. They may have different lives and stresses, but the average person would be an idiot to want to go back in time to 30/40 yrs ago.

 

No doubt technological progress has improved the lives of many. But no doubt things are managed badly. Here is an example.

 

Even saline (salt water) is a problem.  And if America cannot even make enough salt water, things are bad, I submit.

 

 

Facing Cancer Drug Shortage, U.S. Relies on Banned Chinese Plant

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/facing-cancer-drug-shortage-u-s-relies-on-banned-chinese-plant

 

Drug Shortages Forcing Hard Decisions on Rationing Treatments

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/drug-shortages-forcing-hard-decisions-on-rationing-treatments.html?_r=0

 

Two Children Are Sick. There’s Medicine For One. Who Gets It? Who Decides?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/insider/podcast-drug-shortages-in-america-rationing-scarce-resources.html

 

Drug Shortages Persist in U.S., Harming Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/drug-shortages-are-becoming-persistent-in-us.html

 

There’s a national shortage of saline solution. Yeah, we’re talking salt water. Huh?

http://fortune.com/2015/02/05/theres-a-national-shortage-of-saline/

[bennycx]

You're buying something and gaining 3-5x leverage (or more in some cases). Some investments require a negative carry. I don't think that just because you're cash return AFTER paying the mortgage/interest is negative is indicative of exceptionally high tax rates. It's simply a negative carry trade where you're paying for that leverage.

 

Okay but, would dividend taxes at 60% be not considered high?  After all, you can leverage stocks 3-5x just like you can with real estate, and you can still make a return in stocks even if it's negative carry.

 

So like, when the dividend taxes are debated, how come topics like negative carry are not really ever discussed if that is seriously the rational for having high tax rates on rental real estate?

 

How would a regular / poor guy leverage stocks 3-5x as easy as a property?

[ERICOPOLY]

You're buying something and gaining 3-5x leverage (or more in some cases). Some investments require a negative carry. I don't think that just because you're cash return AFTER paying the mortgage/interest is negative is indicative of exceptionally high tax rates. It's simply a negative carry trade where you're paying for that leverage.

 

Okay but, would dividend taxes at 60% be not considered high?  After all, you can leverage stocks 3-5x just like you can with real estate, and you can still make a return in stocks even if it's negative carry.

 

So like, when the dividend taxes are debated, how come topics like negative carry are not really ever discussed if that is seriously the rational for having high tax rates on rental real estate?

 

How would a regular / poor guy leverage stocks 3-5x as easy as a property?

 

TIMELINE:

 

1)

I claimed that a regular /poor guys likes real estate because it's tangible and they can "kick the tires".

 

So I've already explained why they favor real estate instead of something like stocks.  (so it's strange you would come to me of all people with your question)

 

 

2)

Later, somebody suggests that a higher tax rate makes perfect sense on a highly leveraged real estate investment because the total return can still be acceptable even if the cash yield is eroded by the property tax.

 

3)

So I then point out that the acceptable total return argument could be used as a reason to change the tax rate on a stock market investment where you can also get great returns from leverage even if a high tax rate eats up the cash yield from the dividend

 

4)

You then ask me how a regular/poor guy leverages stocks

 

 

I have never made the claim that they do, and you know that.

 

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

It's kind of like this.

 

I will say that cats make great pets.

I will say that goats make great pets.

 

Later on, we'll be talking about food and I'll say that I've had goat in a curry in Santa Barbara.  I will say that goat meat is the most commonly eaten meat in the world and that I have no remorse for eating a goat.

 

Then, a bunch of people will think it is important to ask me if I would eat cats, because after all, they make great pets too.

 

The point being, I don't eat goats because they make great pets.

 

What people tend to do on this board is look for any word association between different statements that you've made, then the tie your two separate statements together to form a new meaning, and then insinuate that you said it or that you therefore believe that too.

[DTEJD1997]

I hate to say, but Trump train is unstoppable!

 

Truly!

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

I think Trump will get the biggest shellacking of any presidental election in recent memory.

 

I am going to suggest that is pretty much going to be impossible.  Wasn't the 1984 election the one in which Reagan beat Mondale in 49/50 states? 

 

Surely you are not going to suggest that Trump won't even win ONE state?

 

Heck, even with all the gaffes/Hillary bump, the latest poll puts him at ONE point down...There is still plenty of time left.

 

Just wait till the debates...there is a good chance that Trump will take Hillary apart piece by piece. 

 

Hillary has also said some questionable things.  At a recent gathering, she was thundering for a middle class tax increase...

[EliG]

Hillary has also said some questionable things.  At a recent gathering, she was thundering for a middle class tax increase...

 

LOL. This is a falsehood pushed by the Trump campaign. It has been thoroughly debunked by Snopes.

[DTEJD1997]

Hillary has also said some questionable things.  At a recent gathering, she was thundering for a middle class tax increase...

 

LOL. This is a falsehood pushed by the Trump campaign. It has been thoroughly debunked by Snopes.

 

LOL!!!!!

 

"Snopes" LOL!

 

I saw the original video myself.  I have heard it on the radio many times....

 

I saw/heard what Hillary said.  Maybe she had a "short circuit" in her brain.  She was most definitely calling for a middle class tax increase.

 

If, as "snopes" suggests, she simply inarticulated "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class", that is a  pretty big thing.  Do we really want someone this scatter brained, and inarticulate to be the commander in chief? 

 

One final things as to "snopes"....who are you going to believe?  Your lying eyes or me?

 

I'll believe WHAT I SAW AND HEARD.

[EliG]

LOL!!!!!

 

"Snopes" LOL!

 

I saw the original video myself.  I have heard it on the radio many times....

 

I saw/heard what Hillary said.  Maybe she had a "short circuit" in her brain.  She was most definitely calling for a middle class tax increase.

 

If, as "snopes" suggests, she simply inarticulated "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class", that is a  pretty big thing.  Do we really want someone this scatter brained, and inarticulate to be the commander in chief? 

 

One final things as to "snopes"....who are you going to believe?  Your lying eyes or me?

 

I'll believe WHAT I SAW AND HEARD.

 

You don't like Snopes? That's fine. Here's PolitiFact:

 

Donald Trump wrongly says Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class

 

Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.

 

By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."

 

Here’s a screenshot of the results:

 

<snip>

 

As you can see, the phoneme (unit of sound) highlighted in pink is an "n," though there’s not a "t." That still suggests she was trying for the word "aren’t."

 

"It is pretty common for people to not release the final ‘t in word-final -nt clusters and is definitely not likely for someone to release the ‘t’in a three-consonant sequence like ‘ntg’ in ‘aren't going,’" Yu told us. "In any case, since she did pronounce the ‘n’ in ‘aren't’, it is clear that she produced the negated form of the copula ‘are.’"

 

Edward Flemming, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also ran the audio through Praat and came up with the same results.

 

PolitiFact verdict:

 

The Trump campaign said, "Hillary Clinton says  she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "

 

According to the transcript, numerous reporters, experts and a computer program, Clinton said the exact opposite.

 

We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

 

 

 

[randomep]

I hate to say, but Trump train is unstoppable!

 

Truly!

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

I think Trump will get the biggest shellacking of any presidental election in recent memory.

 

I am going to suggest that is pretty much going to be impossible.  Wasn't the 1984 election the one in which Reagan beat Mondale in 49/50 states? 

 

Surely you are not going to suggest that Trump won't even win ONE state?

 

Heck, even with all the gaffes/Hillary bump, the latest poll puts him at ONE point down...There is still plenty of time left.

 

Just wait till the debates...there is a good chance that Trump will take Hillary apart piece by piece. 

 

Hillary has also said some questionable things.  At a recent gathering, she was thundering for a middle class tax increase...

 

Yes now that I thought of rb and your comment, I take back what I said. In 1984 it was 525-13 electorial score. Wow. Ok the difference was that Reagan could be considered someone that could appeal to almost all remotely close to the middle of the political divide.  Today the politics is more divisive than anytime in recent memory.  Some people have made up their minds to support Trump irrespective of whatever he says from now to election day.  But in any social endeavour it is very foolhardy to try to argue or predict how unprecendented events will turn out. The best guage we can use is history. We can just ask ourselves have elections like this occured?

 

Well the closest US election I can think of is David Duke back in the 80's in Louisiana (? I think?). What struck me is that he said after he lost: I won my constituency - which was the majority of the white vote.  Ya Trump will win his constituency (I am not saying he is just pandering to the white vote, just whatever the appeal is).  But the appeal cannot expand, IMO.

 

Trump hasn't said much concrete things. He is just going by his larger than life personality.  Follow me and magical things will happen. When have we seen that? Well just going by the top my head: Trudeau, Peron, Hitler, Castro, Kennedy, Reagan.  All of these I would argue failed to deliver and in fact put the followers in much much worse shape than if they followed their average boring politician.  Ok, the exception is Reagan, but I tell ya I think he stepped into a very very fortunate period of history. Kennedy, he only served 2 yrs so we'll never know how his vision would have turned out.

 

Trump has a technique for getting where he is. Everything he says is meant to sound decisive, authoritative but we despise politicians in part because they get mired in details, and when they make comprimises.  So Trump doesn't have that problem because he has never been a politican!  Nobody has challenged Trump on the details in part because of the republican debate format. It reminds me of how religious people argue their beliefs. You go to church and you hear the sermons week after week, but nothing is ever written down. If you don't write things down, then what you said is elastic. He can say oh I didn't really mean that, I didn't say that.  yesterday he said he'll ban all muslims, next day, well it doesn't include heads of states, next day, muslims from terrorist countries, next day only those from syria and iran.

 

It is for this reason that we have stenographers in trials.

 

In a one-on-one debate Trump will be pinned down on his positions. That and the fact he is quite an ignorant and he has no experience in one-on-one debates. I think Hilary will give him a shellacking in the debates. I wouldn't miss it for the world. We'll see who is right come Sept 26.