Trump Just Went Full Sanders — Calls for Increasing Minimum Wage and Higher Taxes

[CPUd]

Trump's revised "tax plan":

1. cut taxes
2. negotiate
3. raise taxes

[LibertyEagle]

Trump's revised "tax plan":

1. cut taxes
2. negotiate
3. raise taxes

Lie.

[CPUd]

Lie.

Denying it doesn't make it any less true. In Trumpworld when your taxes get cut, they go up.

"During a negotiation I could see that going up. I don't want middle to go up at all. But I could see that going up. And I think that probably will happen, because it's a cut for everybody and, you know, the wealthy have done well."

[Anti Federalist]

Uh huh, but that is NOT what is in his tax plan and you are making it sound like it is.

I am doing nothing more than directly quoting what I saw and heard the man say with my own eyes and ears.

People can look and listen and make up their own minds.

[Wooden Indian]

This thread is like a bad skit. LOL

Functional person: He said he may raise taxes and wants a minimum wage increase.

Dysfunctional person: Did not, liar. You twist his words.

Functional person: Did so and he said it here at this exact time.

Dysfunctional person: You lie, Paulbot!

Functional person: Again, he did right here. What the hell?

Dysfunctional person: Okay, well... but it's not like in his tax plan, so...

Functional person: walks away embarrassed for dysfunctional person while shaking head slowly and weeping for the future

[Anti Federalist]

This thread is like a bad skit. LOL

Functional person: He said he may raise taxes and wants a minimum wage increase.

Dysfunctional person: Did not, liar. You twist his words.

Functional person: Did so and he said it here at this exact time.

Dysfunctional person: You lie, Paulbot!

Functional person: Again, he did right here. What the hell?

Dysfunctional person: Okay, well... but it's not like in his tax plan, so...

Functional person: walks away embarrassed for dysfunctional person while shaking head slowly and weeping for the future

[CPUd]

[puppetmaster]

Nope, rather in the instances I have seen, it's the media and some other fellow travelers who are intentionally taking his words out of context.

Again, he wants what he has in his tax plan, but knows full well that Congress may not be willing to pass it as is. So, he is realistic that he may be forced to come off of the numbers a bit, but the final result still being tax rates lower than they are now.

Those who have taken the time to actually listen to the Chuck Todd interview, already know that.

that is what I got out of it also.....

[69360]

That would mean he ever hated "brown people", which he never said that he did. However, he isn't fond of illegal aliens in our country.

It's sad when some paulbots twist the truth.

Oh are we going to pretend Trump didn't win the primary because he wanted to wall off the messicans and kill those isis A-rabs? You're giving the Trump boobus voters too much credit.

[kahless]

I am doing nothing more than directly quoting what I saw and heard the man say with my own eyes and ears.

People can look and listen and make up their own minds.

This is what he said on Sunday:

“I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour,” he said, adding that he would support “an increase of some magnitude” in minimum wage levels, even if he’d rather leave the decision to individual states.

In a seemingly deliberate move to shake up his supporters and test their loyalty, Trump gladly volunteered to up the ante on taxes by telling ABC’s This Week, “I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more.”

Now he's walking it back on Monday.

So, as usual, we're left to decipher what he really means, a little Sanders-esque socialism, or a lot.

Ridiculous that this is even being defended, if it was Killery saying this she would be, rightly, ripped to shreds over it.

1. He is leaving it to the states, says you can't live on it and as a business owner (not a politician) he would raise it.

2. The proposal on his website reduces the tax on the wealthy to 25%, mentions slightly higher maybe. That is still a significant tax break and much lower than Hillary's 39.6% on individuals and Sanders increase to 54.6%. It is an across the board tax break compared to the existing tax tables.

What am I missing here?

I am not saying you are doing this but it is getting really old coming here reading this stuff, getting pissed off at Trump and then doing my own research and finding it was CPUd, jmdrake and a few other clowns making the $#@! up. I have unnecessarily wasted so much of my time sitting through Trump videos and fact checking news you get to a point of why bother since I know the usual suspects are going to post bull$#@!. This when there are legitimate issues Trump should be called on.

So maybe you can enlighten me on how 1 or 2 above are wrong. thx.

[kahless]

I am doing nothing more than directly quoting what I saw and heard the man say with my own eyes and ears.

People can look and listen and make up their own minds.

Lie.

Did I miss the memo or a Ron Paul broadcast that this is what the movement here is supposed to do now? Maybe if someone can post the talking points coming out from the Pauls or whatever the heck it is coming out of it would be less time consuming since there would be no need to keep fact checking this nonsense.

I am going to take a guess that the LP, Constitution Party and the Democrats are all unified in one aspect, to take down Trump using whatever lies or means necessary to advance themselves.

[Anti Federalist]

1. He is leaving it to the states, says you can't live on it and as a business owner (not a politician) he would raise it.

2. The proposal on his website reduces the tax on the wealthy to 25%, mentions slightly higher maybe. That is still a significant tax break and much lower than Hillary's 39.6% on individuals and Sanders increase to 54.6%. It is an across the board tax break compared to the existing tax tables.

What am I missing here?

I am not saying you are doing this but it is getting really old coming here reading this stuff, getting pissed off at Trump and then doing my own research and finding it was CPUd, jmdrake and a few other clowns making the $#@! up. I have unnecessarily wasted so much of my time sitting through Trump videos and fact checking news you get to a point of why bother since I know the usual suspects are going to post bull$#@!. This when there are legitimate issues Trump should be called on.

So maybe you can enlighten me on how 1 or 2 above are wrong. thx.

"I think, frankly, taxes (on the rich) will go up. And they really should go up" @ 9:25

The fedgov is way too huge as it is, taxes should be going up for nobody.

And I take a dim view of anybody who thinks they should.

The fact that what he is saying is contradicting what is on his website only compounds the problem.

[kahless]

The fedgov is way too huge as it is, taxes should be going up for nobody.

And I take a dim view of anybody who thinks they should.

The fact that what he is saying is contradicting what is on his website only compounds the problem.

I have not been paying close attention to the news cycle today but guess I am guessing from this thread and his tweet that his non-specific comment created a stir.

btw - I am waiting to see how the evaluation of Daryl Castle and the Constitution parties tax plan. If they still plan the proportional tax by state populations I would like to see how the states would pass the tax on to the individuals and businesses and which groups or states get hit with the increased or lower taxes

[CPUd]

1. He is leaving it to the states, says you can't live on it and as a business owner (not a politician) he would raise it.

2. The proposal on his website reduces the tax on the wealthy to 25%, mentions slightly higher maybe. That is still a significant tax break and much lower than Hillary's 39.6% on individuals and Sanders increase to 54.6%. It is an across the board tax break compared to the existing tax tables.

What am I missing here?

I am not saying you are doing this but it is getting really old coming here reading this stuff, getting pissed off at Trump and then doing my own research and finding it was CPUd, jmdrake and a few other clowns making the $#@! up. I have unnecessarily wasted so much of my time sitting through Trump videos and fact checking news you get to a point of why bother since I know the usual suspects are going to post bull$#@!. This when there are legitimate issues Trump should be called on.

So maybe you can enlighten me on how 1 or 2 above are wrong. thx.

How are we "making $#@! up" when we are posting direct quotes?

[CPUd]

Did I miss the memo or a Ron Paul broadcast that this is what the movement here is supposed to do now? Maybe if someone can post the talking points coming out from the Pauls or whatever the heck it is coming out of it would be less time consuming since there would be no need to keep fact checking this nonsense.

I am going to take a guess that the LP, Constitution Party and the Democrats are all unified in one aspect, to take down Trump using whatever lies or means necessary to advance themselves.

One day you may realize your candidate is full of $#@!, and that is why it is so time consuming for you to fact check. He has literally been on all sides of every issue.

[acptulsa]

I am going to take a guess that the LP, Constitution Party and the Democrats are all unified in one aspect, to take down Trump using whatever lies or means necessary to advance themselves.

What does this mean, exactly?

The LP has always been able to attract a few disaffected Democratic votes, and this year there are millions of them to try to grab. Neither the CP nor the Democratic Party are able to attract truly disaffected Democratic votes.

The LP has the unique opportunity to rise above itself, with all this major party disgust out here. The LP. Because the only thing this divided and conquered America can agree on right now is, drain that Washington swamp and kill those damned gators! The LP is the only thing running on that platform, and the only one who makes it look credible. And it has always been an anti-war party.

Truth be known that's the only chance Trump has, is a good, strong coalition ticket attracting ex-Sanders antiwar voters. Doesn't matter to us, because we know Clinton and Trump are completely identical, and might even hire the exact same cabinet. But that tidbit factoid might actually be of interest to you.

Assuming you actually are here because you want Trump to win, that is. Of course, if some hypothetical person were just here because he or she was being paid to distract us from forming a third party coalition of voters, he or she might ignore that fact and continue on as though the theory were never uttered.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Yeah, what he said as well.

I can understand why some folks are willing to support him, hell I agree with him on tariffs, and taxes and regulatory fatwas on business that have been killing manufacturing and middle class incomes.

I do not agree with him on his apparent support of a police and surveillance state to keep us all secure.

But more importantly, I don't care for the man on a gut level: you have to understand I grew up with him in the news all the time, being close to NYC. I gambled in his casinos, stayed in his hotel, even flown on his, now defunct, airline.

I know who he has supported in the past, what positions he has taken, and who he does business with, and, speaking of that, have also been witness to his many failures and bankruptcies in business as well. His stance as a "winner take all, never fail" business shark is spotty, at best.

Many of his positions I don't care for, some, in regard to trade and tariffs I do, but regardless, there is no pinning him down on anything that can't be walked back or pointed to contradictions in the past. It's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

He has been "on the inside" all his life, has hobnobbed with and supported some of the very worst of the worst of "insiders" during his career.

To have people believe he is now some hero of the working class, a populist David to slay the Big Bankers, Big Wall Streeters, Big Businesses and Big Foreign Governments, is ridiculous on the face of it.

^^^ This.

What does this mean, exactly?

The LP has always been able to attract a few disaffected Democratic votes, and this year there are millions of them to try to grab. Neither the CP nor the Democratic Party are able to attract truly disaffected Democratic votes.

The LP has the unique opportunity to rise above itself, with all this major party disgust out here. The LP. Because the only thing this divided and conquered America can agree on right now is, drain that Washington swamp and kill those damned gators! The LP is the only thing running on that platform, and the only one who makes it look credible. And it has always been an anti-war party.

Truth be known that's the only chance Trump has, is a good, strong coalition ticket attracting ex-Sanders antiwar voters. Doesn't matter to us, because we know Clinton and Trump are completely identical, and might even hire the exact same cabinet. But that tidbit factoid might actually be of interest to you.

Assuming you actually are here because you want Trump to win, that is. Of course, if some hypothetical person were just here because he or she was being paid to distract us from forming a third party coalition of voters, he or she might ignore that fact and continue on as though the theory were never uttered.

And this ^^^

[LibertyEagle]

Oh are we going to pretend Trump didn't win the primary because he wanted to wall off the messicans and kill those isis A-rabs? You're giving the Trump boobus voters too much credit.

He wants to stop illegal immigration, you betcha and good for him.

[LibertyEagle]

This thread is like a bad skit. LOL

Functional person: He said he may raise taxes and wants a minimum wage increase.

Dysfunctional person: Did not, liar. You twist his words.

Functional person: Did so and he said it here at this exact time.

Dysfunctional person: You lie, Paulbot!

Functional person: Again, he did right here. What the hell?

Dysfunctional person: Okay, well... but it's not like in his tax plan, so...

Functional person: walks away embarrassed for dysfunctional person while shaking head slowly and weeping for the future

Have you even listened to the interview in question? How about you do that.

------------------

Here is the actual interview... (starts at 8:20)



And from what I just listened to, his stance is quite different than what you are depicting. It appears that his words get twisted when he talks about his plan and talks about how Congress may not pass what he wants and how the low rates that he wants may not end up as low as he wants; although lower than they are now. The exception were people who make as much as Trump.

Regarding minimum wage... he thinks it should be left up to the states.

But, yes, the way he speaks, leaves him very open to soundbites that sound very different than what he actually said in full context and the media, and others are taking full advantage of it.

[CPUd]

[LibertyEagle]

I did NOT edit your post.

Yes, you did. However, it has now been corrected for you.

[Ender]

Yes, you did. However, it has now been corrected for you.

Uhh.... show me how it was edited.

I have no idea what you are talking about and you neg repped me for "editing your post?"

I have never negged anyone on this forum but I have just about had it.

[TheTexan]

Trump always did say he takes good ideas wherever he can find them. Even if it is from Bernie.

I'm just hoping Trump picks up on Bernie's plan to create more roads. Creating more roads is always a really good idea.

[otherone]

Well, that didn't take long.

Don't worry, he'll change his mind tomorrow.

[Murray N Rothbard]

The truly insane part of this is how quickly Trumpsters rush to defend and elaborate justifications for all these flip flops. I honestly won't be surprised if the GOP nominee and voters end up more liberal than Hillary and the Demo this year.

[moostraks]

Have you even listened to the interview in question? How about you do that.

------------------

Here is the actual interview... (starts at 8:20)



And from what I just listened to, his stance is quite different than what you are depicting. It appears that his words get twisted when he talks about his plan and talks about how Congress may not pass what he wants and how the low rates that he wants may not end up as low as he wants; although lower than they are now. The exception were people who make as much as Trump.

Regarding minimum wage... he thinks it should be left up to the states.

But, yes, the way he speaks, leaves him very open to soundbites that sound very different than what he actually said in full context and the media, and others are taking full advantage of it.

The media imo is fear mongering with the tax argument from listening to his clarification further in wrt raising from the initial proposal for businesses. The use of the term rather wrt increasing the minimum wage gives the position he is taking the wiggle room for intervention if necessary when states don't respond appropriately to increasing wages to whatever he might opine to be liveable.

[LibertyEagle]

The fedgov is way too huge as it is, taxes should be going up for nobody.

And I take a dim view of anybody who thinks they should.

The fact that what he is saying is contradicting what is on his website only compounds the problem.

And his plan would not make them go up. I listened to the interview with Chuck Todd. He corrected Todd when he said, now you are saying you would increase taxes. What he said was that no, they would still be lower than they are now. But, because Congress may not agree to his plan, he may have to come off of how much he wants to lower them. They still would be lower than they are now though. How you call that a tax increase, I will never know.

[LibertyEagle]

The truly insane part of this is how quickly Trumpsters rush to defend and elaborate justifications for all these flip flops. I honestly won't be surprised if the GOP nominee and voters end up more liberal than Hillary and the Demo this year.

It shouldn't surprise you at all. We all used to criticize when the MSM twisted what Ron said and meant. They did it to Ron and we howled about it; we howled when Redstate and others parroted it. Yet, some here are outdoing them with Trump.

There are plenty of actual positions Trump holds to criticize him on. Go to it. But to lie about his positions should be below the posters here.

I honestly won't be surprised if the GOP nominee and voters end up more liberal than Hillary and the Demo this year.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about Libertarians.

[CPUd]

[69360]

He wants to stop illegal immigration, you betcha and good for him.

I think we all know that is a code word for "I hate brown people", let's not pretend it isn't.

Why not just give all the illegals a green card and make them legal? Problem solved. Anyone who disagrees with that probably is just racist.