[News] Trump says punish women for illegal abortions

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I can cope with someone being a bit MENTALS when they at least backup their silly statements with facts, or plans of action. Sure, you may disagree with what they said, but they've thought about it.

Donald just finishes any question of "I don't know, I just wanna make America great again".

How is ANYONE falling for this? I don't DO politics. I don't know what's left, or right or socialism or any of that boring nonsense. But I DO KNOW when a bloke hasn't had the decency to actually think through a single policy and is just hoping that basically CHEERLEADING will succeed.

 

[Stat Brother]

 

[Buzzer]

I agree with others that Cruz is the very worst kind of evangelical fundamentalist Republican and would prefer Trump (God forbid) to him as POTUS. Interestingly though, I do like the look of Cruz's fiscal plans. They have been given the once over by allegedly independent but still highly respectable Tax Foundation and their findings are:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan


• Senator Cruz’s (R-TX) tax plan would enact a 10 percent flat tax on individual income and replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent “Business Transfer Tax,” or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code.
• Senator Cruz’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $768 billion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital and the much broader tax base due to the new value-added tax.
• According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to a 13.9 percent higher GDP over the long term, provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.
• The plan would also lead to a 43.9 percent larger capital stock, 12.2 percent higher wages, and 4.8 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
• On a static basis, the plan would cut taxes by 9.2 percent, on average, for all taxpayers.
• Accounting for economic growth, all taxpayers would see an increase in after-tax income of at least 14 percent at the end of the decade.

Some of those key indicators are eye-wateringly good and I'm all for flat-rate taxes and simpler taxation codes.

 

[marshy68]

the man is an idiot
and thoes about to vote for him are idiots

That's how I see it.

 

[glasfryn]

Oh now I really don't like him
reminds me of the nasty bloke years ago George Wallace

 

[5ways]

Up against Clinton, I totally agree with you. It's a massive danger.

The Trump as anti-establishment has to be broken and I don't really think Hilary Clinton is in a position to do that.

Clinton will absolutely crush Trump. It's going to be yuuge.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I can cope with someone being a bit MENTALS when they at least backup their silly statements with facts, or plans of action. Sure, you may disagree with what they said, but they've thought about it.

Donald just finishes any question of "I don't know, I just wanna make America great again".

How is ANYONE falling for this? I don't DO politics. I don't know what's left, or right or socialism or any of that boring nonsense. But I DO KNOW when a bloke hasn't had the decency to actually think through a single policy and is just hoping that basically CHEERLEADING will succeed.

Poorly educated, god fearing, working class. Makes up a huge proportion of the American population.

 

[sten_super]

I agree with others that Cruz is the very worst kind of evangelical fundamentalist Republican and would prefer Trump (God forbid) to him as POTUS. Interestingly though, I do like the look of Cruz's fiscal plans. They have been given the once over by allegedly independent but still highly respectable Tax Foundation and their findings are:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan
<snip>
Some of those key indicators are eye-wateringly good and I'm all for flat-rate taxes and simpler taxation codes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but under 'Modelling notes';

The Taxes and Growth Model does not take into account the fiscal or economic effects of interest on debt. It also does not require budgets to balance over the long term, nor does it account for the potential macroeconomic effects of any spending cuts that may be required to finance the plan.

The upshot of this is that their model says 'less tax = good, more tax = bad'. They assume that any money accrued by the government is not spent - i.e. there's no economic benefit from it. A Republican candidate will therefore almost always do a lot better in their analysis than a Democrat.

 

[Buzzer]

The upshot of this is that their model says 'less tax = good, more tax = bad'. They assume that any money accrued by the government is not spent - i.e. there's no economic benefit from it. A Republican candidate will therefore almost always do a lot better in their analysis than a Democrat.

Yup, although I did caveat the post with the 'allegedly independent' comment. I think the Tax Foundation is well known as being right-leaning in practice. I still think there is a lot of merit in looking further into Cruz' tax plans, it's refreshing to see genuine new thinking on the subject and for someone to look to simplify tax legislation.

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]715265526881071104[/tweet]

[tweet]715268276952162304[/tweet]

[tweet]715269956640894976[/tweet]

 

[halbpro]

To think that these idiots make up 50% of the US population! People who support that pumpkin head w*nker have obviously forgotten about the shitty reign of Bush

Nah, they don't. He's polling at less than 40% in the nationwide general election polls right now, he'll get crushed by Clinton or Sanders. Hell some polls have either Democratic candidate up 18% on Trump, which is INSANE. Kasich is the only one who has a shot (based on the current polls anyway) and there's no way he wins the nomination.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Surely illegal abortions are punished by the law, or else they would be legal?

If he meant punishing women, then around 50% of the population are going to turn against him.

 

[sten_super]

Yup, although I did caveat the post with the 'allegedly independent' comment. I think the Tax Foundation is well known as being right-leaning in practice. I still think there is a lot of merit in looking further into Cruz' tax plans, it's refreshing to see genuine new thinking on the subject and for someone to look to simplify tax legislation.

Apologies, I'm not up on my American politics so I'd never heard of them. The point is that all of the numbers are hypothetical, to such an extent as to be pointless IMHO. That's without even considering the value in doing distributional analysis with no government spending modelled.

There's a fundamental problem at the centre of tax legislation, which is that the same legislation has to apply to an SME (most of whom are simply trying to limit the amount of time that they spend dealing with tax, and have limited interest/value in abusing the tax system) and a massive international corporation (most of which are trying to find every loophole possible to minimise their tax exposure). From a macro perspective, what is appropriate for one is not for the other - for example a vastly simplified tax code would suit SMEs but would leave massive loopholes to be exploited by big business. So we end up with something that captures more of the tax base, but at the cost of complexity and time. There are some easy headline wins (aligning corporation tax and income tax, unifying income tax and national insurance, etc etc) that are not pursued because either they are unpopular or they would reduce tax revenues, but I'm not convinced that a huge amount of complexity can be easily removed without vastly reducing the amount of tax that is collected.

 

[Acker79]

Surely illegal abortions are punished by the law, or else they would be legal?

If he meant punishing women, then around 50% of the population are going to turn against him.

I don't think he had many women on his side in the first place. This article is from last thursday, before he made these latest comments https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a0ee82-f1d7-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Nah, they don't. He's polling at less than 40% in the nationwide general election polls right now, he'll get crushed by Clinton or Sanders. Hell some polls have either Democratic candidate up 18% on Trump, which is INSANE. Kasich is the only one who has a shot (based on the current polls anyway) and there's no way he wins the nomination.

Exactly right the closer he gets to the White House the bigger the gap gets. It will be a rout unless the Republicans manage to engineer his removal.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Clinton to win by a big margin, 'Staying In' to win the EU Referendum by a clear margin and the Tories to win the next election with a much increased majority .... get your money on folks.

 

[Cosmic Joker]

I'll just leave this one here:
http://newsthump.com/2016/03/31/donald-trump-pledges-to-spank-women-who-get-an-abortion/

 

[NooBHA]

.............then back-tracks

He had proposed "some form of punishment" for women who have abortions if they were made illegal.

But after strong criticism, Mr Trump repeated the Republican party line that only the person performing the abortion should be punished, not the women.

https://youtu.be/h1Jpoecf0xY

That interviewer was brilliant. He was obviously an a practising Catholic and Trump tried to direct the question to him but the interviewer refused to let Trump question him. I hope Trump comes up against more people like him in the coming months.

 

[symyjym]

That interviewer was brilliant. He was obviously an a practising Catholic and Trump tried to direct the question to him but the interviewer refused to let Trump question him. I hope Trump comes up against more people like him in the coming months.

Yep, indeed. Credit to him. he keeps on giving.

Reminds me of Biff from Back to the Future.

https://youtu.be/S4m848bh1iY

 

[Grombleton]

That interviewer was brilliant. He was obviously an a practising Catholic and Trump tried to direct the question to him but the interviewer refused to let Trump question him. I hope Trump comes up against more people like him in the coming months.

He also met his match vs a radio DJ in Wisconsin, you can imagine him sweating and squirming through the audio.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/28/dona...s/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#eeaf5xO.ImqH

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some of those key indicators are eye-wateringly good and I'm all for flat-rate taxes and simpler taxation codes.

Flat rate taxes? Some on the left think they are unfair because everyone 'pays the same'. My brother (an English graduate from KCL) thinks this. It is total inumerate bollocks. I'm sick and tired of explaining that if everyone paid the same percentage tax, no exceptions or exemptipns, with the level set low, there would be no need for tax inspection, no need for complicated graduated % calculations, more money would be raised (from the dodgers) and it would be fair.

So I agree with you 110%* (not for the first time)

*couldn't resist