By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jimbo1337 said:
Insidb said:

 

 

Take your own advice:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7698266

Because I clearly stated that he accepts small donations and I mentioned absolutely nothing about being self-funded.  You then proceed to post a link that Donald Trump isn't exactly self-funded.  From your article, they mention that he obtained nearly 3.7 million dollars from 73,942 "unsolicited donations", which is roughly $50 per person.  Oh look!  These are small donations that I was talking about.  First read, then think, then type next time...mkay?  

You then proceed to post that "only Sanders can make the not beholden to big donors campagin" when you yourself just pointed out that Donald Trump only accepts small donations from the link that YOU posted.  

Going back to your first point:

You pointed out that big donors are "unwilling to start investing in another campagin".  Do you actually believe what you type?  I mean seriously...

Do you honestly believe that with Trump's huge poll numbers from the start, that he was unable to get ONE huge donor?  It's not like his numbers just rose dramatically like Ted Cruz in the past month or so.  Would you like me to give you links of Donald Trump saying that he rejected huge amounts of money from big donors on numerous occassions?



While it is true that he hasn't raised the kind of money most other candidates have, I think that's still missing the bigger issue here.

I see the appeal of him being plain spoken, and him saying whatever is on his mind. But I don't think that makes up for most of his ideas being really bad. Ignoring how someone might feel about him personally, he's come out with very few actually policies and most of them are bad ideas according to experts in those respective fields.

For instance, the Tax Foundation looked as his tax plan and found that the country would lose a trillion dollars a year in tax revenue. They also found that people who higher tax brackets would benefit significantley more than the average American would. While the average American would see an after tax income increase of between .6% and 8.3% (depending on current tax bracket), people in the top 10% of wage earners would see an increase of 14.6%, and people in the top one percent would see an increase of 21.6%.

Another issue, is Trumps immigration plan. Ignoring costs, most of the actual policies in his plan just wouldn't work. Take his plan to repeal birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Fist off, doing so would require repealing the 14th amendment. Which I think most people would see as a bad thing. Next, this is what the Migration Policy Center had to say about this idea:

"The reality is this: Repealing birthright citizenship would create a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations."

"Under a scenario denying U.S. citizenship to babies with one parent who is unauthorized, our analysis finds that the unauthorized population would balloon to 24 million in 2050 from the 11 million today."

"Touted by its supporters as a solution to reduce illegal immigration, repeal in fact would have the completely opposite effect."

" Study after study makes clear the gains to the U.S. economy and civic fabric that result from the full integration of immigrants into society—integration that is well underway by the second generation."

" there is nothing about eliminating birthright citizenship that is in the national interest."

 

So, you may like the way he talks, or the way he is funding his campaign, but his ideas (the few of them he's put forward so far) have been looked at by the experts and have been found to be bad for the country. How can you support a candidate like that?



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.