From here…
I think the $14 million refers to a casino license filing made by Trump that said he owed his dad $14 million.
The $70 million loan is news to me and is in no sense “small”.
Heh. That would do it.
Given the ratings, the NFL should be complaining.
Here is an idea for a good ad. We’re in the dining room of a white family (to attack his base.) There are an analytically determined number of small, cute kids. The mother is serving dinner, with help from the father.
Cut to them outside the house.
“We work hard, both of us, putting food on the table for our family. And we pay our taxes. We’re glad to for all the things this great country has done for us.”
Other parent:
“I just don’t understand why someone with so much thinks it is smart to make people like us pay more to make up for him. Doesn’t seem patriotic to me.”
What debate advantage? I didn’t hear anything new. It was the same ol’ thing from both sides.
Did Hillary actually overcome any of the reasons why voters don’t like her? Did she actually convince any 3rd party voters to vote for her?
I wonder what the new polls will show? Will Trump’s numbers go up? Will Hillary’s numbers go up? Only 40 some days left until we can start arguing about the 2020 candidates. 
She was winning. She is winning. She will be winning. She will win. She will have won.
This was also true a year ago. Nothing has changed.
Well there was little of substance because most of it was watching Trump crash a series of cars in slow-motion.
But perceptions of the candidates likely shifted, and that’s important.
The right-wing likes to paint Hillary as robotic and part of an elite, out of touch with “real” americans. But she managed to seem affable, while remaining statesmanlike, and the couple mentions of her father will be something many americans can relate to.
Trump lost his composure when it was really the #1 thing he had to avoid doing. He tacitly conceded he didn’t pay tax and doesn’t pay workers sometimes. He dealt with the birther and tax return questions awfully, in both cases repeating an excuse that makes no sense in light of what the moderator had just said.
The mentions of rosie o donnell and hannity were particularly strange self-inflicted wounds as he brought them up himself.
(underline added)
Who told you that Trump “had” to avoid losing his composure? MSNBC? Someone on the internet?
Trump didn’t say he didn’t pay taxes. Hillary implied that Trump didn’t pay taxes. Trump replied that that would be smart. I would love it if I didn’t have to pay taxes. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You seem to think that Hillary did well and Trump failed to impress. I’m going to wait for the results of the polling that began after the 1st debate. Personally, I didn’t see anything new, or anything that would cause any voters to change their minds about these campaigns.
She stated that returns released for his casino license showed he paid no federal tax.
Only a fool would pay more in taxes than they are mandated to. Trump is smart to structure his business for his benefit. It’s not smart to engage Clinton on that subject in a debate setting.
If it makes you happy … assuming that the polling science designed polls stating that Clinton was judged as “having won” are correct, that what most of us believe we saw is correct, and polls over the next several days, taken after the debate, demonstrate a rise in her aggregated advantage with a bump of somewhere between 2 to 5 points in those new polls, how should she press that advantage? … Hypothetically of course.
I would say that if somehow after what the rest of us thought we saw Trump pulls even or ahead then it would be time for him to press his debate advantage.
Of course it would be an odd place to be … “See, polling science doesn’t know what it’s doing! Which we know because the polls say the polls were wrong!”
As running coach above has pointed out, actually the line is “That makes me smart”. He then doubles down on it a moment later when Hillary says he didn’t contribute anything towards American infrastructure by saying “It would be squandered”.
And what about the other things I listed? None of this looked bad to you?
Agree he shouldn’t be trying to do it in a debate setting, especially when it was brought up in the context of him hiding his tax returns for that reason, and he more or less owned up to it.
But regardless, it’s damaging however it came up. Sure you don’t have to pay more than you have to by definition. But if he were a good person he might have tried to draw attention to the loopholes, lobbied for more progressive taxes or donated to charity; many of the super rich have done all of these things.
Just having your nose in the trough I guess doesn’t make you a bad person but it sure as hell doesn’t look good.
So J K Rowling is a fool because she stay’s domiciled in the UK and refuses to take advantage of tax loopholes like other billionaires do? You also think James Dyson, billionaire investor is also a fool because he pays his taxes?
There are things which are legal but morally repugnant, and using loopholes to pay zero tax when you’re a billionaire makes you a morally repugnant scumbag and a parasite. He personally, and his companies all benefit from using public infrastructure, roads etc, but he refuses to pay his share and worse than that, his companies have benefited from handouts from the government, so he’s a welfare queen! For a politician, it’s even worse than for a businessman to be proud of paying zero tax and we expect far higher public scrutiny of them including releasing their tax returns.
Another article with more celebs who make a moral point to pay their taxes, you think they’re all fools Octopus?
He could have mitigated the optics of the statement by saying something like “sure, I used the laws to the best of my abilities, but I want to close those loopholes so we all pay our fair share, just like your liberal rich friends want to increase everyone’s taxes, including their own, but in the meantime you better believe they also take advantage of every tax benefit they can.”
They’re already showing that Hillary’s numbers have gone up. 10 point increase on 538’s “polls-only” chances in just a few days, and likely to keep rising.
Or, ask her if there were any tax deductions she was eligible for that she opted not to take.
Which is almost certainly the case, as the Clintons paid an effective tax rate of something like 35% on their last return.
Let’s put it this way: in 1978, being a millionaire was still a big deal. It meant you never had to work again unless you felt the urge. You could invest that $1M in bonds at 5%, which would have been $50K/year, which was upper middle class money back then, probably a few multiples of the median income.
Seriously ignore the 6 point shift Clintonward on Rasmussen’s 4-way this morning. For the purpose of this thread you can consider her debate advantage merely being the obvious shift in the news cycle narratives. It is clearly for this week off her negatives, on her looking strong/confident/powerful and on a variety of Trump’s negatives. Even before polls come out that alone can count as her “debate advantage” - how best to leverage it is the question.
And as she sells that positive vision, she needs to drive home the point that her supporters need to win control of Congress for the Dems if they want that vision to be realized.
Even if she’s comfortably ahead, reminding her followers that the Senate’s still up for grabs, and we’re still a ways from winning the House, will give some urgency to the race for her supporters that would otherwise be lacking.