http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to
As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California. It isn’t safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it’s bad for business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here it goes.
Just wondering if you bothered to read his entire post?? There is SO much in here...where to begin?
First...how many Trump supporters have been beaten up at Clinton rallies? How many Trump supporters have been killed? We have actual video of Trump supporters physically attacking Clinton supporters...
Second...if you are concerned that your political viewpoint will affect your business, then keep your political views to yourself!!
On to the link:
1. Things I Don’t Know: There are many things I don’t know. For example, I don’t know the best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don’t know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither do you. I don’t know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws. So on most political topics, I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do.
Mr. Adams is likely correct that he doesn't know many of these things. Mr. Trump doesn't either. He has no plan for fighting ISIS. He has never negotiated a trade deal and his commentary on trade clearly suggests he had made no effort to learn anything about them since he declared his candidacy. Note that Mr. Adams does not give any endorsement of Mr. Trump's ability to handle any of the issues he noted.
Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.
Now this part is really stupid. Ms. Clinton's policy on taxes has been to increase them on the wealthiest members of our society. This is not new. This has been her position since the get go.
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.
This goes on...but the rant is quite stupid. The author claims an intellectual superiority when his comments show he knows nothing about the estate tax, how the estate tax exclusion works, the number of estates the tax impacts per year, or the easy and simple planning available to those with such high net worth. Mr. Adams starts his post by claiming all the things he doesn't know. He really should have added estate tax planning to the list.
The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish).
This is hilarious. The current estate tax exclusion is $5.45 million.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax
Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.
The poor bastard...I really fell sorry for him. Dumbass doesn't even know that the loopholes (trusts and other options) are built into the laws to reduce/eliminate exactly the thing he is whining about.
I'm skipping the next two items as they are too subjective.
5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do.
This is the best part...Mr. Adams needs to add "Oath of Office" to the lists of things he doesn't understand. Mr. Trump is not "pacing and leading" he is doing what used to be called flip flopping.
And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell to me.
So history is another item Mr. Adams doesn't understand. Please see Neville Chamberlain (whose appeasement approach Mr. Adams suggest is "safer") and Ronald Reagan (whose approach had much more beneficial results)
I am going to skip is opening persuasion comments as they are also rather dumb, simplistic and naïve. We'll go to the conclusion.
In summary, I don’t understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump’s or Clinton’s proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training.
In essence, what Mr. Adam's endorsement boils down to is this: he has made no effort to understand the policies of either candidate. He has made no effort to understand how the three branches of our govt work. He just doesn't want to pay taxes.
Based solely on his desire to pay little or no taxes to support the country that has afforded him the opportunity and freedom to be as successful as he has been, he feels qualified to offer an endorsement of a Presidential candidate.
And Vrai, who usually can't stand when a Hollywood type steps in with a political viewpoint, is all for this endorsement! How wonderful!
