Did VP Debate Sway Anyone to Vote for One Ticket Over Another?

[Clapton is God]

I've never met anyone who said, "I voted for Obama because of Joe Biden", or "I voted for George W. Bush because of Dick Cheney". I think the VP debate is a waste of time, but I'm curious if anyone was actually undecided and swayed to vote one way or the other because of the Vice-Presidential debate?

 

[TurtleDude]

I've never met anyone who said, "I voted for Obama because of Joe Biden", or "I voted for George W. Bush because of Dick Cheney". I think the VP debate is a waste of time, but I'm curious if anyone was actually undecided and swayed to vote one way or the other because of the Vice-Presidential debate?

No I am voting for Trump because I know what Clinton stands for. Most of the people on this board tend to be hard core political junkies. We are much different than the average low information voter who really doesn't follow politics. You do know that more Americans can tell you who won American Idol vs the two senators from their home state

 

[Clapton is God]

No I am voting for Trump because I know what Clinton stands for. Most of the people on this board tend to be hard core political junkies. We are much different than the average low information voter who really doesn't follow politics. You do know that more Americans can tell you who won American Idol vs the two senators from their home state

I'm well aware and it's sad. Things like American Idol and the NFL are what's really important anyway.
I would point out though that just because someone follows politics all day long doesn't mean that they're not operating on "low information".-Especially if they're getting all their information from cable news. I've definitely read some intelligent comments on this forum for sure.

What is it that Hillary stands for that you oppose? Part of me wants to believe Trump could possibly be better, but I can't get down with stop-and-frisk, a wall on our border, reducing internet freedom, etc...
Although I don't support a "gold standard" it's certainly better than paper. It's not enough to get me to vote for Trump though. In Donald Trump, Gold Bugs See One of Their Own - MoneyBeat - WSJ

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm well aware and it's sad. Things like American Idol and the NFL are what's really important anyway.
I would point out though that just because someone follows politics all day long doesn't mean that they're not operating on "low information".-Especially if they're getting all their information from cable news. I've definitely read some intelligent comments on this forum for sure.

What is it that Hillary stands for that you oppose? Part of me wants to believe Trump could possibly be better, but I can't get down with stop-and-frisk, a wall on our border, reducing internet freedom, etc...
Although I don't support a "gold standard" it's certainly better than paper. It's not enough to get me to vote for Trump though. In Donald Trump, Gold Bugs See One of Their Own - MoneyBeat - WSJ

Gun rights
taxes-income which she wants to raise and the death tax which she really wants to jack up
Judges-we don't need more childless radical feminists on the USSC
borders-Hillary thinks the more illegals the better and she will turn them into Democrat voters.

 

[Incisor]

Gun rights

What kind of gun rights? Like, terrorists should be able to get guns? Children? The proposal was mandatory background checks on all gun sales. Hard to see why that's objectionable.

taxes-income which she wants to raise and the death tax which she really wants to jack up

Well, we've tried the tax cut thing the last 35 years and it didn't work at all. So, if it hasn't worked for 35 years, what makes you think it ever will? And the Estate Tax should be way higher. Inherited wealth was something even Adam Smith said was garbage.

Judges-we don't need more childless radical feminists on the USSC

What does having a kid have to do with anything? I'd rather have Merrick Garland on the bench than Omarosa. And I think you feel the same way. It's OK. You can admit it. Trump isn't exactly the best judge of character.

borders-Hillary thinks the more illegals the better and she will turn them into Democrat voters.

So that begs the question, if that's the intent then why don't the Republicans support amnesty? Do they not want to win elections? Furthermore, most of the illegal immigrants in this country are people who overstayed their visas. Specifically the H-1B Visa that Trump uses to import foreign labor to work in his domestic resorts so he can hold the visa over their heads and extract whatever he wants from them; whether it's low pay, no time off, or poor working conditions.

 

[TurtleDude]

What kind of gun rights? Like, terrorists should be able to get guns? Children? The proposal was mandatory background checks on all gun sales. Hard to see why that's objectionable.



Well, we've tried the tax cut thing the last 35 years and it didn't work at all. So, if it hasn't worked for 35 years, what makes you think it ever will? And the Estate Tax should be way higher. Inherited wealth was something even Adam Smith said was garbage.



What does having a kid have to do with anything? I'd rather have Merrick Garland on the bench than Omarosa. And I think you feel the same way. It's OK. You can admit it. Trump isn't exactly the best judge of character.




So that begs the question, if that's the intent then why don't the Republicans support amnesty? Do they not want to win elections? Furthermore, most of the illegal immigrants in this country are people who overstayed their visas. Specifically the H-1B Visa that Trump uses to import foreign labor to work in his domestic resorts so he can hold the visa over their heads and extract whatever he wants from them; whether it's low pay, no time off, or poor working conditions.

ah another Hillary supporter who hasn't paid attention to what his/her idol has said

Hillary has said the following

1) Heller should be reversed. Heller held that American citizens had an individual right to own commonly used weapons that are not unusually dangerous in their own homes. It did not wipe out many state regulations or even some bans. Why would the HIldabeast want to reverse that ruling unless she WANTS TO BAN commonly owned firearms that are not unusually dangerous?

2) The lying Hillary also brays that the Australian and English gun bans have merit. IN both cases handguns (completely in England, partially in Australia but they also banned all semi auto centerfire rifles semi auto/pump shotguns) were banned and confiscated. So hillary obviously things banning handguns and confiscating them is a good idea

3) hillary supports suing gun makers for injuries caused by firearms EVEN if the gun maker only distributes its weapons to licensed wholesalers and dealers. Hillary supports the suit against Bushmaster arms by the Sandy Hook survivors merely because they made the rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill innocents. The rifle in question was legally sold to a wholesaler who then sold it to a retailer. After performing a background check and imposing a waiting period, the weapon was sold to Adam Lanza's mother

why don't you tell us what the maker did to merit being sued? well the LEFT WING DEMOCRAT JUDGE who allowed the suit to go forward has claimed that the mere act of making such a rifle is a factual issue concerning liability. That is what Hillary wants

 

[TurtleDude]

BTW its hilarious that Hillary fans quote Adam Smith for somethings but I am sure you wouldn't want to follow him on others

why does the government have a greater right to an estate someone creates after paying millions upon millions of taxes while making it, that the people the creator wants to have the wealth

 

[haymarket]

I've never met anyone who said, "I voted for Obama because of Joe Biden", or "I voted for George W. Bush because of Dick Cheney". I think the VP debate is a waste of time, but I'm curious if anyone was actually undecided and swayed to vote one way or the other because of the Vice-Presidential debate?

The VP debate is meaningless and will not change any votes in November. After Sunday night - it will be news that is forgotten.

 

[Incisor]

ah another Hillary supporter who hasn't paid attention to what his/her idol has said

Who said I supported Hillary? I voted for Sanders in the primary specifically because I thought Hillary was too flawed a candidate. But when stacked against Trump, it's hard to not see a difference in the inherent ability to effectively serve as President. Trump doesn't take this thing seriously. That's why he never prepares for anything. Because he doesn't care. He doesn't even understand how a bill becomes a law. We can't have someone that unfit in the White House. We just can't.

1) Heller should be reversed. Heller held that American citizens had an individual right to own commonly used weapons that are not unusually dangerous in their own homes.

Well, that was the majority opinion, sure. But the guy who wrote that opinion is dead now. So if another case reaches the SCOTUS and they rule differently, isn't that kinda the point of our democracy? Why can't we re-litigate that? I actually don't really care either way. There's more guns than people in this country and no amount of gun control is going to change that. It's just a public health hazard that we have to live with now, like chicken pox or the flu.

2) The lying Hillary also brays that the Australian and English gun bans have merit. IN both cases handguns (completely in England, partially in Australia but they also banned all semi auto centerfire rifles semi auto/pump shotguns) were banned and confiscated. So hillary obviously things banning handguns and confiscating them is a good idea

Well since the majority of gun deaths in this country are caused by handguns, I can understand why you'd think that.

3) hillary supports suing gun makers for injuries caused by firearms EVEN if the gun maker only distributes its weapons to licensed wholesalers and dealers.

Well, if tobacco companies can be sued because they lied about carcinogens in cigarettes, why shouldn't gun makers be sued by victims of crimes committed with those weapons?

why don't you tell us what the maker did to merit being sued? well the LEFT WING DEMOCRAT JUDGE who allowed the suit to go forward has claimed that the mere act of making such a rifle is a factual issue concerning liability. That is what Hillary wants

First of all, I think all firearms should require liability insurance. Period. It's crazy that they don't. Secondly, I think she's looking at the issue the same way we look at tobacco companies. Which isn't entirely an unfair comparison. Cigarette makers could be sued, but tobacco companies are still around and people still smoke cigarettes. So who cares if a gun maker gets sued and loses? It didn't stop tobacco companies from continuing to sell cigarettes. Why would it have any effect on gun sales?

 

[Incisor]

why does the government have a greater right to an estate someone creates after paying millions upon millions of taxes while making it, that the people the creator wants to have the wealth

Because they didn't earn that wealth. They merely inherited it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because they didn't earn that wealth. They merely inherited it.

you like many others who support the wealth vandals, miss the point. The person who owned it has a right to decide what happens to it. property he or she paid taxes on. that's what you miss. the heirs don't have a "right" until the owner of the proper bequeaths it to them

now tell me why there should be double taxation on the wealth of rich people when so many people get full citizenship benefits without paying much of anything?


your gun arguments are pathetic and show you have absolutely no understanding, nor respect, for constitutional rights

 

[Chillfolks]

Because they didn't earn that wealth. They merely inherited it.

The government did nothing to earn any portion of that wealth. They have already taken their portion. Why are they entitled to a second portion simply because of someone's death?

 

[Incisor]

The person who owned it has a right to decide what happens to it.

Says who? You? LOL.

the heirs don't have a "right" until the owner of the proper bequeaths it to them

Right, so they're doing nothing to earn it. Just as I said. I thought you Conservatives were the ones who didn't think anyone should get something for nothing, but here you are.

now tell me why there should be double taxation on the wealth of rich people when so many people get full citizenship benefits without paying much of anything?

Who gets full citizenship benefits? Those people actually work. Heirs do not. It's kinda the point.

your gun arguments are pathetic and show you have absolutely no understanding, nor respect, for constitutional rights

Wow. Take a chill pill, dude. Nothing I said was wrong. I actually said I didn't care either way because no amount of gun control isn't going to reduce the number of guns in this country at all. I see gun violence now as a public health hazard that we just have to deal with and accept. Like herpes.

 

[Incisor]

The government did nothing to earn any portion of that wealth. They have already taken their portion. Why are they entitled to a second portion simply because of someone's death?

The heirs did nothing to earn that wealth. So they should be taxed more because of that. I thought you all were the "nobody gets something for nothing" people, but here you are...defending people who get something for doing absolutely nothing.

 

[Visbek]

I've never met anyone who said, "I voted for Obama because of Joe Biden", or "I voted for George W. Bush because of Dick Cheney". I think the VP debate is a waste of time, but I'm curious if anyone was actually undecided and swayed to vote one way or the other because of the Vice-Presidential debate?

Statistically speaking, VP debates don't make a difference. You're not voting for the VP for President, after all.

 

[TurtleDude]

Says who? You? LOL.



Right, so they're doing nothing to earn it. Just as I said. I thought you Conservatives were the ones who didn't think anyone should get something for nothing, but here you are.



Who gets full citizenship benefits? Those people actually work. Heirs do not. It's kinda the point.



Wow. Take a chill pill, dude. Nothing I said was wrong. I actually said I didn't care either way because no amount of gun control isn't going to reduce the number of guns in this country at all. I see gun violence now as a public health hazard that we just have to deal with and accept. Like herpes.

bottom line-another noob who thinks the government really owns all property and you are allowed only to keep what your wise masters say you can. Sorry, don't buy into that collectivist BS

 

[Incisor]

bottom line-another noob who thinks the government really owns all property and you are allowed only to keep what your wise masters say you can. Sorry, don't buy into that collectivist BS

Way to go with the hyperbole, dude.

Sitting here trying to figure out why a Conservative would defend someone getting something for nothing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Way to go with the hyperbole, dude.

Sitting here trying to figure out why a Conservative would defend someone getting something for nothing.

Actually I am objecting to the government getting something for nothing and then giving it to people who did less than nothing to deserve the wealth of others

 

[Clapton is God]

Statistically speaking, VP debates don't make a difference. You're not voting for the VP for President, after all.

Very true. We technically don't even vote for the Presidential candidate either. The electors do that.

 

[AGENT J]

I've never met anyone who said, "I voted for Obama because of Joe Biden", or "I voted for George W. Bush because of Dick Cheney". I think the VP debate is a waste of time, but I'm curious if anyone was actually undecided and swayed to vote one way or the other because of the Vice-Presidential debate?

Hmm I can't recall ever hearing that statement in the affirmative either, but I most certainly have heard it in the negative. I heard tons of people say they wouldn't vote for McCain because of Palin. But in general I do agree its a rare thing and in my life time thats the only time i heard reactions like that.

IMO the debate was kinda pointless, I dont think it would ever make people change tickets (party vs party) but it could sway people to shift their vote from the one of the main parties to other (3rd party, not vote, write in etc) we saw that happen in 08.

 

[trouble13]

Because they didn't earn that wealth. They merely inherited it.

What did the gov do that it earned somebodys inheritance?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Incisor]

What did the gov do that it earned somebodys inheritance?

Roads, schools, clean air, clean water, airports, seaports, the FBI, etc.

No one is proposing the government take all the inheritance, just raise the rates. It doesn't affect you, so why do you care?

 

[trouble13]

Roads, schools, clean air, clean water, airports, seaports, the FBI, etc.

No one is proposing the government take all the inheritance, just raise the rates. It doesn't affect you, so why do you care?

I get that you think the gov is entitled to a larger chunk. What im trying to understand is your reasoning. You said the person inheriting the money did not earn it so therefore the gov should get a bigger piece of it. I just wanted to know what you think the gov has done to earn it. I thank you too for answering me.

The problem i run into with what your saying is this, our tax code is based on our income and we pay according to our tax bracket. If i receive a winfall it should be viewed as part of my income for that year and i should pay taxes on that at whatever rate of the tax bracket im in.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Incisor]

I get that you think the gov is entitled to a larger chunk. What im trying to understand is your reasoning. You said the person inheriting the money did not earn it so therefore the gov should get a bigger piece of it. I just wanted to know what you think the gov has done to earn it. I thank you too for answering me.

The problem i run into with what your saying is this, our tax code is based on our income and we pay according to our tax bracket. If i receive a windfall it should be viewed as part of my income for that year and i should pay taxes on that at whatever rate of the tax bracket I'm in.

I don't disagree. However, different income sources are subject to different rates. Capital Gains, for instance, has a different tax structure than normal income from working. If you're proposing one rate structure and all income regardless of how it is received is subject to that universal rate structure, I think that's reasonable.