>>15975 You know I'm pretty tempted at this point to vote Trump. I can't stomach Hillary. She feels like a candidate running in the year 2000. Bill was an okay president, Hillary is like Bill without the charisma. Another issue is that we basically need to delegate with leaders from cultures that don't even consider women human, so how is she supposed to even get through to them?
Like any president, he'll maybe get half of what he has proposed done, and if you think about it, that's not too bad. It would be a nice fuck you to the system.
>>15979 Anyone else? I support Trump as well, but I hate everyone else. Also, many Trump supporters (around 50-60% I believe) are dead set on supporting Trump, are you one of them? >>15982 How about any of the other GOP candidates?
>>15983 >Other GOPs Not after Trump got them all dancing to his game. Rand Paul I like on a lot of issues, he's sensible about a lot of things and I generally think he'd do well in office. For whatever reason he has like no presence in this election. I haven't studied up enough on the GOP admittedly, Carson Is okay, but he speaks in whispers, and was kind of a psycho as a kid.
Trump is starting to get more sensible. I do feel he genuinely gives a shit about America and I'm more interested in his ability to rekindle patriotism in American.
He's also pretty much the only person who has said, fucking anything at all about veterans and the way we shit on them.
>>15991 Rand was born without charisma, and his manner of speaking isn't terribly engaging, even if he is right on most things.
He's just not a good candidate for President, and he either needs to take some control and find his own voice, or just stay in the senate and pump out as many kids to fight for freedom as possible, and hope one of them takes after his Father.
Trump's always been pretty sensible though, people just don't really get into what he's saying very often because they get distracted by his media manipulation of the week that people are too busy blowing up about. I've been watching his rallies a lot now, and you know, at the very least, even if you don't like his policies, he would be the kind of guy that went on TV everyday and told you that you were gonna kick ass and take names today, because you're an American and Americans are amazing, and after a little while people would believe it, and start feeling good about themselves and their country.
If that's all we got out of Trump it would be really great, really special, so huge.
Also yeah, he's one of the few guys who seem to care about the military men who actually served their country, who are getting totally screwed. My Grandfather is a vet, and he can't get an appointment at the VA for months, for even routine stuff. It's a joke, and whoever's running it currently should be tried for treason.
>>16034 >Sanders is right that the top marginal tax rate, that paid by the wealthiest Americans, was around 90 percent under Eisenhower — it was actually 92 percent in the 1950s. Today, the top marginal tax rate is 39.6 percent, although the richest 1 percent end up paying less than that on average and the average rate actually fell for many years.
>Republicans have consistently claimed that higher tax rates on the wealthy will hold back economic growth, while lowering rates further will spur it forward.
>But that’s not likely the case. Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out. Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.
Wow gee, it's almost like we were the only functioning economy in the world in the 1950's or something. So all we need is to destroy the world and then we can show those stupid Republicans that high tax rates really work.
Sanders had a chance but he's past the point of no return. He didn't hit Hillary when he had the chance and now its snowballed into a failed campaign. He is doing really good in new Hampshire, but Hillary will take Iowa and build momentum.
The best part of all of this is that there are people who will vote for Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nod. I've seen this firsthand on my Facebook feed. Granted I think the goal is to send a middle finger to the 'system', but the two are polar opposites. I think these are the true low-information voters. But if Trump gets enough of the youth vote and maybe a slice of the black vote, he's a sure thing.
>>16037 That's the idea. We then plan to sell Florida to Cuba for a few cigars and skin the Republicans alive for their pelts and fat so we can keep warm back in our Soviet Motherland. >Oh wait, only 1% of Republicans are fat because most of the party is made up of white trash who haven't starved because they're on welfare. >high class brainwashed the idiots into voting Republican so they'll slowly starve. >High class white guys win and then can implement thier oligarchy >Jewish conspiracy? >methinks not
>>16198 We were the only economic model in the world because the rest had been reduced to rubble a few years prior, meaning we could set any tax rate we wanted because there was literally nowhere else to go with your money unless you wanted to live on a pile of rocks.
If you set a high tax rate now, then all those fat cats everyone spends their time decrying will just go to Hong Kong because they offer lower rates.
What you need to do is accept that fact, and keep tax rates competitive to attract more wealth people here to invest, and couple that with moderate protectionist policies to keep those investments with all the wealth and jobs they create within our borders so that Americans can enjoy a good standard of living and gainful employment.
>>16195 Trump is a moderate protectionist, which means that he wants to protect American interests by taxing imports and battling currency manipulation, as well as making it less profitable to export jobs, and most importantly clamping down on immigration so we don't have tens of millions of low skill workers killing wages in this country.
>All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%
take a look at his tax bands
You don't start paying tax until you earn 25,000
you earn >25,000. You are still on less than the living wage and you get a 10% tax increase, you then double your income, you quadruple your tax burden.
someone on 100,000 a year doubles their income? Their tax burden only increases by a third.
Average income is $51,000
So the average american is paying $10,000 in tax
The federal budget is $3.8 trillion.
Even if the entire population of the US earned $51,000, including children, and even if they all paid the top band of tax 25%, you're only just matching the budget.
Trump literally got someone to divide the budget by the total population of the US. He then took the result and worked out what it was as a percentage of the average wage. Its guaranteed to run a defecit and it punishes those working below and slightly above the living wage (majority of americans).
>>16233 Deficits can be easily solved with cut spending.
Why should anyone consent to spending more and more and more and more money every year for a bunch of unconstitutional agencies to justify and grow their budgets so they can keep their nice jobs and send their kids to private schools?
I don't think so, the government is out of control and keeps to be beaten back into line.
>>16226 >We were the only economic model in the world because the rest had been reduced to rubble a few years prior, meaning we could set any tax rate we wanted because there was literally nowhere else to go with your money unless you wanted to live on a pile of rocks.
You arent very good at history are you?
>If you set a high tax rate now, then all those fat cats everyone spends their time decrying will just go to Hong Kong because they offer lower rates.
Thats a fallacy. Some might, some won't. Like anyone else, if i can get a better job two towns over I weigh up my options and make a decision based upon personal utility. Its sad that you think that all America has to offer is a tax rate, especially since it does not have the most competitive tax rate currently.
You pursue that ideology and you squeeze growth out of the economy by shifting the tax burden to low earners, reducing their disposable income and reducing liquidity in the economy.
>>16233 Trump said that the tax cuts will be beneficial in the long run since it will spur economic growth (let's not forget cut small business and corporate taxes) and he aims to bring back the corporate inversions with a one time 10% repatriation. Combine this with bringing back manufacturing from overseas, as well as repairing our infrastructure (policies he's stated) and we have an economy again.
>>16240 Well the idea is to expand the revenue base via protectionist taxes, cut military spending, cut Obamacare, obviously, and to slice up all the agencies that shouldn't exist within the federal government's sphere of influence.
If you cut taxes and being companies and big money back into the country, then you'll stimulate the economy naturally by having people keep more of their money to spend, and the big businesses that keep their operations here will go ahead and pay into the tax plate instead of moving or keeping their operations overseas to pay nothing.
Right now our highest concern is the economy, because it's on the brink, so we need to save that first and foremost, and through the Trump tax and protectionist policies we might be able to do that, and keep it from costing us a lot of money, if any. Short term it will run deficits, but long term it will lead to surpluses, otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road and growing this bubble even larger to ruin the country.
>>16237 >shifting the tax burden to low earners Low earners wouldn't pay any taxes under Trump's plans though, aside from state taxes.
And if you don't think we live in a totally globalized economy right now then you're crazy. People with wealth can just move their operations abroad and pay less, like how we're losing healthcare companies to Ireland, every tech company to China and Japan, and whatever else to everywhere else.
We're not going to have any companies left to tax because they're all looking to maximize profits, and if they can do so by offshoring then they're going to do it, so by keeping them here we at least get a slice of the pie instead of literally nothing.
Also, it doesn't help low earners at all if you ship off all their work to Thailand or wherever else, so unless you want to create an entire class of welfare leeches, then you need to make America an attractive place to operate all levels of business, or else you're just dooming people to a pitiful state-assisted existence with no hopes of upward mobility.
Incorrect, 25,000 is still a low earner. All taxes are reduced, but they are reduced for top earners significantly more. The burnden shifts.
Where did you get the impression that I don't think we live in a globalised society? I simply said that residency is sticky. People stay where they are happy, not always where they are most wealthy. If you court the affections of the rich by lowering taxes - these are the people who can afford to hire accountants to minimise their tax anyway - they likely aren't even paying their fair share of income tax anyway.
>>16250 >Right winger Please keep your childish notions of partisanism to yourself, I'm just operating in a manner I think works.
So what if rich people get to keep money? You can leverage that money into the country by changing around deductibles to make investing into public works a profitable venture, like giving tax breaks to people that invest in lower/middle income housing, or soup kitchens, or public parks, or whatever else your heart desires in order to spark growth that works for all Americans.
This rich bashing is such an empty endeavor because it banks entirely on the idea that the government can actually run a budget and spend money like it's not a nigger on payday, when in reality the best person to employ to build things that work are the same people who own the money that's being risked, and not some bureaucrat that can blow 50 billion bucks and still keep his cushy job.
It's a joke.
>>16248 You can cut a huge chunk of change just by cutting all the unconstitutional agencies and lowering military expenditure, in addition to growing the tax base thanks to making the US more attractive to investors and businessmen to keep their money within our borders instead of sending it abroad. There's a huge amount of money out there we could be profiting off of instead of letting China and Mexico eat our lunch.
There's a reason why China has the largest middle class in the world, and ours is going down the toilet.
>>16254 Turns out that people with more money can spend that money in ways that directly benefit low earners, namely by creating jobs and opening opportunities for them to ascend the ladder of social status and earnings.
By enabling low earners to keep *more* of their money, while doing the same for higher income earners, you create a free market where high earners will sell products that low earners purchase, and then use the profits to create more business ventures that have to rely on low earners to staff and support them, creating a mutually beneficial relationship.
Oh or we can just tax everyone and waste their money on total garbage like Obamacare, foreign wars, and more welfare for illegal and legal immigrants, I'm sure that will shut people up.
>>16255 >tax breaks >unconstitutional agencies They already tried Reaganomics. Twice. It was a failure both times that led to huge deficits. The so called 'unconstitutional' agencies are there to police the free market whose only motive is profit at the expense of everything and everyone else.
ok, don't be silly, you support trump, you are a right winger. Do you also support keynesian economics? Don't worry, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Its not that rich people get to keep money. Its that this tax cut rewards them disproportionately, Trump is going to get a tax break for himself by promising smaller tax breaks for the people voting for him. Its not rich bashing. Please engage with the content of the argument instead of getting your panties in a twist.
>>16256 >Turns out that people with more money can spend that money in ways that directly benefit low earners, namely by creating jobs and opening opportunities for them to ascend the ladder of social status and earnings.
No it doesn't. Educate yourself. Lower earners have a higher marginal propensity to spend as their income increases. Higher earners have a higher marginal propensity to save, since you can only spend so much money. Spending on mundane shit like food, the cinema, clothes is what creates investment and jobs, not some rich guy buying a high performance car and going on holiday to bermuda.
>>16265 That's based on a hypothetical based solely on people who are in the market for a car, a small minority of society at best.
In the real world 2 or 3 of those people would be too poor to afford a car, 1 would buy a Prius to 'help the environment' even if it means insurmountable debt, and at least 2 or 3 of the 10 total would eventually default on their car loan anyway.
>>16268 These are 10 peope capable of buying a budget car. Its a thought experiment to make you think of the different ways in which $100,000 could be spent. Do you put that money in the hands of the wealthy few, or in the hands of the many? With that in mind should tax breaks focus on the richest 10%, or the majority of the population?
>>16259 The rest of the world was in ruins when Eisenhower was in office. Go raise the tax rates to 90% and watch how we bleed money until socialism is the only means left because we cannot create wealth anymore.
>>16262 >No it doesn't. Educate yourself. Oh boy thanks for that stunning refutation.
People with less money are going to spend more, sure, which is great, but "rich" people only save money if you make it economically smarter for them to save money. If sticking all their money in the bank means that inflation will eat away at their purchasing power, then they're going to invest it, and if you make investing in projects that enrich various aspect of America, like public works or private enterprise, then they'll spend that money to avoid full taxation or whatever is going on at the moment fiscally.
People just don't sock away money for no reason, it has to be a smart economic choice to just bank all your money, otherwise you're out spending that money to create /more/ money.
So I don't even know what you're trying to get at, since yeah people spending money creates jobs, but to spend that money means that there's a market demand for the products that they're buying, which means someone is SELLING those products to them at a profit to make money, and the people who are good at that will re-up it and continue to do so until they fail miserably or succeed and become rich.
>>16279 The entire world is their secret island. It's a global competition to attract foreign and domestic investments, and the countries that offer the best rates and profit margins win out more than the others.
Oh sure, not /everyone/ will do that, but it's a numbers game, and the more attractive investment areas will win out more and more and more until it's a completely viable option to base operations out of by default, and the losers will sit back and wonder how they went wrong by robbing people of as much money as they could so they could dump it into shitty government programs that exist to make government employees and contractees money.
>>16257 >The so called 'unconstitutional' agencies are there to police the free market Uh no, what are you even talking about?
Unconstitutional agencies would be the ones that operate within the federal government whose existence is not permitted via the constitution, thus making their authority those of the states, and rendering their existence illegal until thus time that their powers are transferred from the federal government to the state government. Until you can amend the constitution then there's plenty of *illegal* waste that takes place in the government.
Department of education, EPA, Department of Energy, Department NLRB, etc, all exist outside the authority of the constitution, so they're literally illegal and can be chopped up and handed over to the states where they belong.
All this bullshit of "policing the free market" is a joke, especially given the fact that we not only allow blatant regional monopolies to exist and screw people, but also let the banks run rampant and ruin the economy whenever they please due to the nature of their lending practices, and nobody does anything because those institutions own the place and wastes of space like you save for them endlessly by championing their shitty policies by helping to solidify centralized powers in the federal government to continue getting away with economic murder that you can't even begin to understand because the media isn't out there biting the true hands that feed, meaning that nobody is going to go on camera and act smug about these issues to get a bunch of hippies and the criminally underinformed to go after them.
Don't try and take some phony moral high ground when you have no idea what you're even talking about.
>>16286 >Department of education Charter schools >EPA Polluters: Coal, oil, mining, power production (including nuclear), chemical and manufacturing >Department of Energy All of the same for the EPA >Department NLRB I think you mean The Department of Labor, which is why we have 8 hour workdays and children under 16 can't work in anymore.
All of these things are necessary. The constitution is a living document.
>>16284 Corporate inversions don't mean anything when the company in question leaves the US entirely, it only applies (mostly) to domestic corporations that operate within the US with branches and investments overseas that they try and make more profitable so they can pay less taxes.
As companies continue to grow and expand, as does the rest of the world and it's technology, so will the ability and incentive to operate out of singular hubs with large, and growing, markets where tax rates and such are greatly lessened.
If you want to sold the problem, and future proof it, you need to get with the times and actually compete, or you're just bridging the gap and leaving the country open to a major fall sometime in the future, which is completely avoidable if you don't just kick the can and pretend like it will go away, as you spend the country into a deeper and deeper hole than is possible to be dug out of, which is not only terrible for the economy, but also for the state of the union.
>>16288 If you think they're necessary then they're under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government, and until the constitution is amended, then they're all illegal in their current form.
>>16295 The EPA is the youngest of the agencies you mentioned, and it's almost 50 years old. Many have tried and failed. Some like the Department of Labor are almost 80 years old.
Presidential appointments can pack these agencies with industry cronies and insiders just as surely as it can with social justice activists and environazis. Successive congresses can gut their budgets or superfund (pun intended) their agendas. They aren't going away. Everyone likes having their supermarket meat inspected and every local school district likes their federal attendance money.
>>16304 None of that makes them legal, and nothing last forever.
They can either find themselves safety within the constitution via amendment, distributed to the authority of the states where they belong, or crushed under some future event.
I don't even understand any of this shit, you can just hand them over to the states and they're perfectly legal, but instead people like getting assfucked by a constantly expanding, and expensive, federal government that take and takes and never ever gives back. That's not at all what our system of government is supposed to be like, and if you don't use your brain and take a stand over the most obvious constitutional issues, then eventually that will go out the window too as the federal government keeps expanding and rendering the sovereignty of the states and the nature of our union impotent.
The constitution is such a simple document that denotes clear cut powers to various government agencies that the only people who can interpret what is quite plainly written are those with an obvious agenda and no willingness or desire to uphold the singular most important laws of the country. If you want to ignore the constitution or "interpret" it to read literally the opposite of what it says, then just go make a new country somewhere else and make up whatever laws you feel like enforcing at the time.
>>16323 >That's a made up term pulled out of the asses of people that want to ignore what the constitution says and replace it with what they wish it said.
>"Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine." --Woodrow Wilson, 1912
In 1987, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation.
>>16329 Of course Woodrow Wilson would say that, he viewed the constitution as an obstacle to his progressive platforms and sought out as many means to subvert to ignore it as possible. He's the one that ruined the country with the creation of the fed too, which robbed us of our sovereignty over our monetary policy and currency that basically dictates the direction of the entire country because a handful of unelected people have complete control over our money supply instead of the peoples of the united states. He should be dug out of his grave and rolled into the ocean for what he did to us, and all the things that cannot be undone without causing unimaginable harm as they were designed that way.
Thanks a lot Woodrow, you piece of shit.
>The constitution must be interpreted differently because things change and that means the law can say whatever I want it to say
Even you don't believe this. Might as well just write laws in disappearing ink if they're so worthless.
>>16331 I really want her to win the nomination, because I want to see her and the Democrats completely destroyed as a party, but at this rate the FBI will either have her indicted, or will dump all the evidence they have on her to the media if the DoJ fails to do so, which means we'll get Biden, because the Dems won't send Sanders out there no matter what, and who knows what will happen in that case.
Trump vs Biden wouldn't be very interesting, and it wouldn't change the 2 parties very much, I don't think, which would be very disappointing because then neither side will have to grow and get better, so we'll just suffer through more years of terrible policies and ignoring of the will of the people in favor of whatever gets these idiots elected.
>>16334 Even Thomas Jefferson recommended that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years, because he knew it would become outdated. The constitution cannot be applied to today's society because it's naturally completely different, and law from two centuries ago shouldn't apply today without being reformed.
>>16340 You want to rewrite the fucking Constitution when our government can't even agree on a budget? I don't think so. The Constitution is just a framework, not a be all/end all document. That's why we have amendments and 3 branches in the government; to adjust for each generation and maintain balance rather than scrapping the whole thing. Doing what your or Jefferson suggest is why so many dictators today maintain power--they just rewrite documents at their own convenience.
>>16341 The capacity for reinterpretation of the intent of the original lawmakers are why gay marriage is now legal, but it's also why corporations are now people. It also works toward the advantage of both parties agendas and/or neither party at times.
>>16336 >The constitution is like vague set of loose guidelines No it isn't, it exists to bind the hands of government so that they can't overextend and tyrannize people by setting clear cut powers that the federal governments have, and everything else is denoted to the states.
See, literally anything can be law in the US outside the constitution, as long as the states do it. Not everything needs to be given to the feds, and I have no idea why people are so willing to give up their rights to self determination so eagerly to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Washington to dictate to the entire country at their leisure, all while taking even more and more money from you to justify their existence that barely anybody outside of mouth breathing morons and illiterate welfare queens want.
You love all these agencies that currently exist outside the authority of the constitution? Super awesome, then have your state do all that shit and leave everyone alone with your bullshit.
>>16337 You have to be seriously ignorant or mentally challenged if you actually believe this.
The FBI is running an investigation not only over her potential violation of the espionage act possibly over a thousand times, but now over outright public corruption for her dealings over the Clinton foundation that she may have abused during her tenure for her own personal gain.
She's in a hot pot of shit right now, and even if the DoJ don't go through with filing charges, the FBI will just react by leaking all the evidence they've amassed to the media to crucify her with.
She's real life finished, nothing and nobody is going to save her at this point, especially not some idiot on the internet.
>>16355 >The FBI is running an investigation not only over her potential violation of the espionage act possibly over a thousand times, They're doing a routine administrative investigation that they do anytime classified documents are involved. > but now over outright public corruption for her dealings over the Clinton foundation that she may have abused during her tenure for her own personal gain. No, Fox News is saying an "unnamed source" is saying they *might* be doing that, but offer no confirmation. No charges against her have been filed so far, criminal or otherwise. > the FBI will just react by leaking all the evidence they've amassed to the media to crucify her with. No they won't and even if they do it will be like the Fox News story, all unnamed sources nobody believes outside of conservative media. >She's real life finished, nothing and nobody is going to save her at this point, especially not some idiot on the internet. Is this a /pol/ meme?
>>16361 >The emails are public knowledge bro, there's over a thousand, and the fact that they exist, the very fact that they were on that server, means the espionage act was violated. You seem to think that means something it doesn't. The FBI isn't looking into whether or not Clinton violated the espionage act. Most of what you think was classified wasn't at the time it was in possession of the state department anyway.
>>16363 >Most of what you think was classified wasn't at the time it was in possession of the state department anyway.
Dude what? Information that's deemed classified at any point in time means that it was always classified unless specifically declassified, so even if it isn't marked or whatever, if you mishandle information that later on is designated classified then you're by definition in gross negligence of the espionage act, because via the process of mishandling, hostile groups can gain access to said information and use it for their own purposes, which means we're fucked, so any and all government employees that are handed information that may be secret, must treat it as secret or they go to fucking prison.
If you operate under the totally wrong idea that classified information only becomes classified at a later date, then that information would be rendered as completely fucking useless because it could have passed into however many different hands, so the only natural way to handle it is to assume it's classified so that we aren't leaking information to anyone that can get their hands on it.
Plus, a lot of the information wasn't owned by the state department, it was owned by other departments, so even if the state department mishandled their own info and then pretend like they didn't, they're still 10000% on the hook for information pertaining to the other departments and the military, so there's no free pass on this one, and ignorance is no defense because every staffer of ever agency takes an oath about all this shit, so they all understand what proper procedure is, and if they violate that procedure then they can face extremely harsh consequences, because if they don't then our intelligence network is basically garbage and our national security is at risk.
So you can remain in your little fantasy land, but the facts are as clear cut as humanly possible, and there's no room for interpretation because the law is very clear on this matter.
>>16367 >Information that's deemed classified at any point in time means that it was always classified unless specifically declassified, We've already been over this, no it doesn't, not when the originating agency (which was The State Department) first gets the intelligence before it gets shared with the relevant agencies. It wasn't classified until the other agencies became aware of it, which was well beyond the time Hillary had the documents. This is why the FBI is doing the routine investigation.
>>16445 >he thinks only one person is defending the truth in these Hillary threads okay sure, whatever you say /pol/. The only reason you're attacking me personally is because you can't refute my arguments.
>>16576 >but it's actually demand for goods and services that creates jobs No shit fagtard, and when the demand for goods and services are able to be met at a higher rate thanks to people having more money, that creates more room in the market as more people will spend their money on your garbage, creating opportunity and allowing people to take more risks to allow them to create their own businesses to tap into that flow of wealth.
>>16807 He said John McCain wasn't a hero for getting captured.
He's since ironically become the most pro-vet military guy. I think he even got off stage once to talk to a vet in a wheel chair who was getting shitty healthcare, and had him helped out, so I think he's fine in the veteran department now.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.