socialism

Started by mille125
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This demonstrates once again how money does NOT win elections.

Hillary outspent Trump. Kamala outspent Trump. Stevens outspent El Sayed. Etc.

Money obviously can put anyone on a ballot and get some name recognition but it doesn't win elections.
I don't have the data but I'd bet these are exceptions, not the rule.


Here’s the scary part

View attachment 422982
Scary part of what? Wtf are you talking about?

El Sayed has zero to do with Muslim Brotherhood. This is stupid racist fear-mongering from Republicans trying to win the general election.
 
Here’s the scary part

View attachment 422982
People said the same thing about the Irish during the potato famine. “Destroying” the USAs culture by immigrating into it is like jumping into a pool to get rid of the water. Sure you might splash a little, but mostly you just get it all over you. And then your kids refuse to get out when you tell them.

 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
People said the same thing about the Irish during the potato famine. “Destroying” the USAs culture by immigrating into it is like jumping into a pool to get rid of the water. Sure you might splash a little, but mostly you just get it all over you. And then your kids refuse to get out when you tell them.

Yeah I get it. People said the same thing in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan before being taken over. Maybe history won't repeat itself.....nah
 
Yeah I get it. People said the same thing in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan before being taken over. Maybe history won't repeat itself.....nah
Maybe if we all think real hard we can spot the differences between fundamentalist Islam taking over a middle eastern country and taking over the United States.

But seriously, this is yet another moral panic to try to capitalize on fear of anyone or anything different, to justify whatever self-serving cronyism policies those in power are pushing. It’s literally a tale as old as politics itself.
 
Maybe if we all think real hard we can spot the differences between fundamentalist Islam taking over a middle eastern country and taking over the United States.

But seriously, this is yet another moral panic to try to capitalize on fear of anyone or anything different, to justify whatever self-serving cronyism policies those in power are pushing. It’s literally a tale as old as politics itself.
I've spent some time in Southeast Asia and they have real issues too.

For example in Southern Thailand there is real discontent and a Muslim separatist movement and a bomb that goes off in a cafe every few years.

Locals in Indonesia, especially women, are being repressed in new ways. I heard that from an Indonesian woman.

There is an ongoing war in the southern Philippines with an Islamic separatist movement.

So it's not just the ME.

It's eye opening talking to these people. Not at all like the progressive news bubble.
 
Yeah I get it. People said the same thing in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan before being taken over. Maybe history won't repeat itself.....nah
Can you explain more who took over these countries and what 'history' you are referring to?

Edit

I'll admit I'm dismissive of the social media posts I see about the 'Muslim takeover' of the US.

But I really do want to understand where the fear comes from. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims so it's sort of mind-boggling how people adopt ISIS as some sort of mainstream view. Middle East is a **** show of tribal, religious, and sectarian violence. It's mostly full of dictators and the overwhelming majority of civilians death and suffering has been by the local Muslim populace.

Are you worried about Muslims replacing white Christian Americans? Is it the language or dressing different or different skin color that makes one uneasy? Have you had specific interactions with Muslims or the Muslim community you have seen to suggest that they are planning something sinister?
 
Last edited:
Can you explain more who took over these countries and what 'history' you are referring to?

Edit

I'll admit I'm dismissive of the social media posts I see about the 'Muslim takeover' of the US.

But I really do want to understand where the fear comes from. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims so it's sort of mind-boggling how people adopt ISIS as some sort of mainstream view. Middle East is a **** show of tribal, religious, and sectarian violence. It's mostly full of dictators and the overwhelming majority of civilians death and suffering has been by the local Muslim populace.

Are you worried about Muslims replacing white Christian Americans? Is it the language or dressing different or different skin color that makes one uneasy? Have you had specific interactions with Muslims or the Muslim community you have seen to suggest that they are planning something sinister?
Has nothing to do with the latter part of your post. I encourage you to do a deep dive into Dearborn MI. Be open minded and curious and really research what’s happening there

I dont think we should have sharia law here in the US. I believe in free speech, freedom of religion and equality regardless of gender, sexual preference or race.

The countries listed above were primarily Christian nations until forcibly taken by Islamic regimes. I don’t think you’d be happy living in any of those countries but then I again I’m assuming you hold western values which you certainly may not
 
Has nothing to do with the latter part of your post. I encourage you to do a deep dive into Dearborn MI. Be open minded and curious and really research what’s happening there

I dont think we should have sharia law here in the US. I believe in free speech, freedom of religion and equality regardless of gender, sexual preference or race.

The countries listed above were primarily Christian nations until forcibly taken by Islamic regimes. I don’t think you’d be happy living in any of those countries but then I again I’m assuming you hold western values which you certainly may not
Deep dive into Dearborn, MI? Should I be looking for something in particular? I visited once long ago, had great Yemeni food there.

Can you explain what sharia law? It relates to how one practices their religious beliefs. It is the Muslim equivalent of Canon law in the Catholic Church or Halakha in Judaism. It does not contradict the US legal system in any way. Can you give a specific example of sharia law here in the US that you find problematic?

I was confused by your statement of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, in Syria. These are modern countries that didn't exist 100 years ago. They were never Christian nations. The Middle East was more Christian 1500 years ago during the Roman empire. I thought you're talking about modern history, not religious conquest 1300 years ago. Christianity did also spread through the Roman empire and conquest as did the Crusades. I am still not sure where your concern is regarding this or why it is relevant. Are you worried about external invasion of the US by Muslims or something internal?
 
Deep dive into Dearborn, MI? Should I be looking for something in particular? I visited once long ago, had great Yemeni food there.

Can you explain what sharia law? It relates to how one practices their religious beliefs. It is the Muslim equivalent of Canon law in the Catholic Church or Halakha in Judaism. It does not contradict the US legal system in any way. Can you give a specific example of sharia law here in the US that you find problematic?

I was confused by your statement of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, in Syria. These are modern countries that didn't exist 100 years ago. They were never Christian nations. The Middle East was more Christian 1500 years ago during the Roman empire. I thought you're talking about modern history, not religious conquest 1300 years ago. Christianity did also spread through the Roman empire and conquest as did the Crusades. I am still not sure where your concern is regarding this or why it is relevant. Are you worried about external invasion of the US by Muslims or something internal?

Clubdeac means well but his previous statements are shrouded in ignorance.

Just like there is massive ignorance in the populace about with socialism is and what it is not.
 
Link just goes to his fb page


His comment on the post:

The Red Cross had made a sympathetic video about the challenges this Afghani immigrant had in seeking refuge in Greece
They had to take it down after he murdered his Scottish girlfriend and stuffed her into a suitcase
Modern immigration is not the same as historic immigration. The mass of middle eastern immigrants is not the same as the Guatemalan nannies, Filipino nurses, Mexican farmers, and Indian tech workers of the past
Blanket blind immigration is causing the destruction of western society
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad


His comment on the post:

The Red Cross had made a sympathetic video about the challenges this Afghani immigrant had in seeking refuge in Greece
They had to take it down after he murdered his Scottish girlfriend and stuffed her into a suitcase
Modern immigration is not the same as historic immigration. The mass of middle eastern immigrants is not the same as the Guatemalan nannies, Filipino nurses, Mexican farmers, and Indian tech workers of the past
Blanket blind immigration is causing the destruction of western society

1786199624525.jpeg

“Thomas Nast cartoon depicting violent Irish mobs attacking police officers”

Newspaper editorial at the time:
“Think, for instance, of the change wrought by foreign immigration, with all its necessary consequences. In the State of Massachusetts to-day, the number of citizens of foreign birth who have no traditional association with the story of Concord and Lexington is larger than the entire population of the State on the day of the battle… This enormous influx of foreigners has added an immense ignorance, and entire unfamiliarity with republican ideas and habits, to the voting-class.”
(Irish Claims to the Revolution (U.S. National Park Service))
 
View attachment 423020
“Thomas Nast cartoon depicting violent Irish mobs attacking police officers”

Newspaper editorial at the time:
“Think, for instance, of the change wrought by foreign immigration, with all its necessary consequences. In the State of Massachusetts to-day, the number of citizens of foreign birth who have no traditional association with the story of Concord and Lexington is larger than the entire population of the State on the day of the battle… This enormous influx of foreigners has added an immense ignorance, and entire unfamiliarity with republican ideas and habits, to the voting-class.”
(Irish Claims to the Revolution (U.S. National Park Service))

 
This is all magnitude.

Those in the bottom 1/3-/12 do not have the advantages Dr. DuctTape has because they do not have stocks nor own homes. They do not have IRAs that can grow for 50+ years growth deferred. They are not able to do a ROTH/conversion IRA and only paid taxes on the initial 100K now worth 5M. They are not able to own businesses where they do CBPs, Augusta Rules, and countless other deductions.

Looking at Point #1 - Buffet never sell his shares so how has he made money on his investment? Just as Dr. DuctTape could never sell his shares and thus never pay on his investment. Many docs do this. I plan to never sell my shares if I do not need the money and just send it to my Trust.

Looking at Point #2 - Buffet is able to borrow on his assets just like many well off doctors. He takes out on business appreciation and Dr. DuctTape takes out on his home equity who can roll the old ones into new loans in perpetuity. At time of death, he could just leave the home to his heirs via estate planning.

Eventually someone will pay Dr. DuctTapes loans just as someone will pay Buffett's loans. Buffett/his heirs likely will just donate a large sum of money during his life to offset taxes when he closes the loans.

From they bottom 1/2 view, Dr. DuctTape and Buffett are doing the same and not paying their share of taxes. In reality, they are the same other than magnitude.

To your point of interest rates - Buffet has a low rate around Prime because it is essentially a riskless loan. Berk is not going anywhere and the loan he takes is a slither of his overall wealth. Dr. DuctTape has a higher rate because his assets are riskier but in line with the risks and his high credit score, maybe Prime +1 or 2. The lower 1/2 in the US will either not get a loan or will pay Prime + 2 or 3.

Again, similar rules and just magnitude. To the bottom 1/3, you (and I) are no better than Buffet. It is hypocritical to demand Buffett pay his fair share when Dr. DuctTape would not want to pay his fair share when looking through the lens of the bottom 1/3. So Unfair the advantages Dr. DuctTape have and not available to Medicaid Jane.

Similar to Buffet giving away Billons to defer taxes, Dr. DuctTape gives away a slither compared to Buffett. Dr. DuctTape sure hasn't given his "fair" share to charity and keeping the vast majority to his kids. The horror.
as stated previously, rich people do not have to contribute at all to the system. the loopholes generate passive wealth that does not contribute anything to the overall financial health of the system that the rest of us do not have access to.

buffet never sells his shares because he gets low-interest rate loans against the potential gain in those investments purely by speculation on the loaner's part, with the knowledge that it is a very safe investment (they could sue buffet for that money in the future).


their inheritors do not pay capital gains taxes on inheritance unless they sell it, and then when they do, they pay capital gains taxes on only the current fair market value, and not on any of the appreciation over the decades.

for example, buffet has 100 mil. he takes out a loan for 1 mil. at 1% interest. 30 years goes by. he doesnt do a day of work. the loan comes due. he rolls over the loan to a new 1mil loan, doesnt pay taxes on that money and now has another 1 mil to play with. in the meantime, his 100 mil has become 612 million

he passes. his estate gets the 2.37 mil loan along with 612 mil. they take out 2.6 mil of the 612 mil leaving 609 mil and would pay taxes on the 2.6 mil but they give 350k (give or take) to charity to write off and essentially do not pay any taxes at all and get the bonuses of donating to charity a small amount compared to what they inherited. they dont have to work ever again, which they probably never had to.


in the middle-class case, they do dollar cost averaging of 33300 per year savings, work 30 years. in the end, they retire with $1.4 mil. at best, they can get a 6-7% rate loan out of that amount of money which they will be forced to pay back on a monthly basis throughout their lifetimes. their kids get what is left over, including the loan, but the kids most likely will pay capital gains taxes


in the lower class case, they cant put anything in. they work 40+ hours a week, for 30 years. they hopefully can get enough social security to pay for expenses, but most likely not. they leave nothing to their kids when they die.



these are not similar rules. these are rules made to benefit the rich with the illusion that they benefit the middle class but no illusion of affecting the lower class - the ones suffering from the financial inequity in the first place.
 
I am well aware of what buffet does and my point is most docs/anesthesiologist have similar access if they want. Not the same magnitude but similar that the lower class does not have access.

My point is, would you as a doc in the 5% class be willing to remove all of your advantages that you are asking of Buffett. Again, magnitude but you have many benefits not affordable to the lower 2/3 of this country. Just being able to refinance your home allows you $$$ that is not taxed which is not that much diff than Buffet. You get the loan using your home while Buffett uses his shares.

Plus, NO ONE is getting a loan at 1%. NO ONE. No bank is lending money at a loss, that is just made up stuff.

Here is what Chat says

When very wealthy people borrow against stock for living expenses, the interest rate is usually tied to a benchmark such as SOFR plus a negotiated spread. For a billionaire pledging a huge, diversified portfolio, the spread can be quite low.


A rough range in today's environment might be ~4.5–6.5%, depending on the borrower, collateral, loan size, and bank.
 
Deep dive into Dearborn, MI? Should I be looking for something in particular? I visited once long ago, had great Yemeni food there.

Can you explain what sharia law? It relates to how one practices their religious beliefs. It is the Muslim equivalent of Canon law in the Catholic Church or Halakha in Judaism. It does not contradict the US legal system in any way. Can you give a specific example of sharia law here in the US that you find problematic?

I was confused by your statement of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, in Syria. These are modern countries that didn't exist 100 years ago. They were never Christian nations. The Middle East was more Christian 1500 years ago during the Roman empire. I thought you're talking about modern history, not religious conquest 1300 years ago. Christianity did also spread through the Roman empire and conquest as did the Crusades. I am still not sure where your concern is regarding this or why it is relevant. Are you worried about external invasion of the US by Muslims or something internal?
Here’s how many describe sharia law. This would be antithetical to western culture

Check out this video, "what's sharia law"
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-US&hl=en-US&client=safari&hs=4okV&sca_esv=38057d684074d37c&q=what's sharia law&docid=G-igvkl4930EUM&ibp=video&shem=epsd1,ivsple,rimspwouoe&shndl=41&shmd=H4sIAAAAAAAA_1WQzU4CMRDHo8bLXr15arKJURNYUBMDCSELiMGgiYKReDFlKbt12S20Xfk4-QZeFDxIQPxMeAvfwQdQX4BHcBqXg4dfp53_f6aT0b6WtJUzB0tEBSo5mFOMiridXnUdKZsiaRjEt3i3KUktIqt-LGoLiSW1ohbzDOphm4h0KwVK0jyqJfatk61MpX6I63Yu3srvRna6Lk9s92KF7GVQrNDz06IdyfIr0ugRJi86XntNpOKxzc_F2eh5iGbDwSvwDjyFTIAX4E2J_fAxCY2Ke2AK3AJj4AF4DPMDtK5KQ3UaUam5FP7TDw2q7A4YKX0DqXG078ENmm-hxnzGoxZnQpAO9qhPalHGbUPTdLPJGswmsBSB9AMiAghZh1MhKfap7CK97BBlgVuOWZJDMdIztNqAcBwQ8DFfmFUWyDym0kG66Ys24dCm5JKm6vsx_t-yIMo8gOq_M6um2gunQnqeY98tB5y4nZ_l64XR0i8QhY1V5AEAAA&shmds=v1_ARwrE22z0bZKJLAOGl-C1YgAuy1M0xq3EyMH1ur3SAnPhRmINw&source=sh/x/vid/m1/3&kgs=2cf98e1de69d0737
 

This is how people describe sharia law who get their information from right-wing social media. I only listened to the first 30 seconds of the video because it is obviously meant to be propaganda. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan are repressive governments and use extreme fundamentalist interpretation of religion as an excuse to serve their political power. Even so, women aren't property in Iran. They can leave the house, hold corporate jobs. They account for 50% of university grads. Even extreme or very early versions of Islam grant women separate legal rights and right to own property separate from their husbands. Western countries didn't do this until the 1800s.

You are conflating practices of an oppressive political regime with an entire religion. Are there Muslim groups here in the US advocating for confining women to their homes, or imposing their beliefs on others? If so please provide an example.

Have you ever met a Muslim at a personal level or had a 1-on-1 lunch with one? What about visiting a mosque? There are many Muslims or Muslim organizations that would be happy to talk to you and answer your questions, including those about repressing women.

Do you think that would provide a more accurate representation of what practicing Muslims in the US view as sharia law than that video you sent?
 
I am well aware of what buffet does and my point is most docs/anesthesiologist have similar access if they want. Not the same magnitude but similar that the lower class does not have access.

My point is, would you as a doc in the 5% class be willing to remove all of your advantages that you are asking of Buffett. Again, magnitude but you have many benefits not affordable to the lower 2/3 of this country. Just being able to refinance your home allows you $$$ that is not taxed which is not that much diff than Buffet. You get the loan using your home while Buffett uses his shares.

Plus, NO ONE is getting a loan at 1%. NO ONE. No bank is lending money at a loss, that is just made up stuff.

Here is what Chat says

When very wealthy people borrow against stock for living expenses, the interest rate is usually tied to a benchmark such as SOFR plus a negotiated spread. For a billionaire pledging a huge, diversified portfolio, the spread can be quite low.


A rough range in today's environment might be ~4.5–6.5%, depending on the borrower, collateral, loan size, and bank.

i dont get their benefits. you dont get their benefits.

you think you do.





==

i hate to mention that the reason most of the rich do not take salaries - they can be readily taxed. instead they take stocks & shareholdings that they justify saying "im tying my wealth to the company's health", when the purpose is to avoid paying taxes and obtaining disposable money by borrowing off those same stocks.

===

and to be specific, most people are asking that buffet contribute the same as the average american taxpayer.



in your examples, you complain that the middle class is getting benefits over the lower class.

the lower class get the same benefits as the middle class, but they never make enough.


the issue is that the upper class is getting benefits the lower and the middle class have no access to. this has increased the income inequality of the US to some of the highest levels since right before the Great Depression.
 
This is how people describe sharia law who get their information from right-wing social media. I only listened to the first 30 seconds of the video because it is obviously meant to be propaganda. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan are repressive governments and use extreme fundamentalist interpretation of religion as an excuse to serve their political power. Even so, women aren't property in Iran. They can leave the house, hold corporate jobs. They account for 50% of university grads. Even extreme or very early versions of Islam grant women separate legal rights and right to own property separate from their husbands. Western countries didn't do this until the 1800s.

You are conflating practices of an oppressive political regime with an entire religion. Are there Muslim groups here in the US advocating for confining women to their homes, or imposing their beliefs on others? If so please provide an example.

Have you ever met a Muslim at a personal level or had a 1-on-1 lunch with one? What about visiting a mosque? There are many Muslims or Muslim organizations that would be happy to talk to you and answer your questions, including those about repressing women.

Do you think that would provide a more accurate representation of what practicing Muslims in the US view as sharia law than that video you sent?
I know the guy in that video personally and can assure you it’s not propaganda. Great guy. listen to the entire video before you jump to conclusions and dismiss it whole cloth. I hope there’s some truth to your posts
 
I know the guy in that video personally and can assure you it’s not propaganda. Great guy. listen to the entire video before you jump to conclusions and dismiss it whole cloth. I hope there’s some truth to your posts
Edit: deleted my post.

It seems you are more interested in demonizing an entire group of people than engaging in a sincere effort to learn about them.
 
Last edited:
i dont get their benefits. you dont get their benefits.

you think you do.





==

i hate to mention that the reason most of the rich do not take salaries - they can be readily taxed. instead they take stocks & shareholdings that they justify saying "im tying my wealth to the company's health", when the purpose is to avoid paying taxes and obtaining disposable money by borrowing off those same stocks.

===

and to be specific, most people are asking that buffet contribute the same as the average american taxpayer.



in your examples, you complain that the middle class is getting benefits over the lower class.

the lower class get the same benefits as the middle class, but they never make enough.


the issue is that the upper class is getting benefits the lower and the middle class have no access to. this has increased the income inequality of the US to some of the highest levels since right before the Great Depression.
Your post essentially is making my case.

1. Life is not fair. Some people have different benefits compared to others. I am a physician, I know lots of docs, I have gotten friends/family to see docs the next day with just a quick text. During peek covid, a friend of a friend asked me if I could get her hubby out from an small ER with his dissection. There was no beds anywhere and he was told he could potentially die in the ER b/c there was no hospital that would accept. I made a call to a friend and he got a bed at a heart hospital.

2. Buffet and most billionaires contribute more than you or I could ever dream off. Look at Michael Dell and how much he has given. So you are right, compared to most billionaires, we contribute much less and the bottom 1/3 likely much less than docs. This "fair" share is just a made up phrase to demonize the rich. I bet you Nancy gives much less than most billionaires.

3. Docs do have "unfair" access to benefits compared to the bottom 1/3. You even said it yourself, they don't make enough. If you made as much as a billionaire, then you would get the same access?

4. Finally, your 1% loan articles is either extreme cases, personal favors, or blatantly false. Chatgpt agrees with me and it may approach 1% when the 10 Yr treasury yield was low. Mortgage rates was 2-3% in 2020 b/c the 10 yr treasury vield was 0.52%. Current Yeild is 4.7%. So yeah, if a billionaire got a loan around that time, they may have gotten a 1.5% loan. Just as people with good credit ratings had 15 fixed mortgage rates around this time of 2.1%. The horror right? Not fair? But I can tell you with certainty that no billionaires are getting bank loans at 1% right now unless banks are in the business of losing money. I texted a friend who is a VP at a large bank about this 1% loan in today's market, and he just laughed...... his quote "WTF are these people smoking".

I am done with debating this. If you think Billionaires are not paying their "fair" share and docs do not have "privilege" benefits, then no amount of facts will change it.

Just to be factually fair, Michael dell has committed 10B to charity. Buffett 60B, Bezo 4.7B, Musk 400+M plus 8B to his charitable foundation.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain more who took over these countries and what 'history' you are referring to?

Edit

I'll admit I'm dismissive of the social media posts I see about the 'Muslim takeover' of the US.

But I really do want to understand where the fear comes from. There are nearly 2 billion Muslims so it's sort of mind-boggling how people adopt ISIS as some sort of mainstream view. Middle East is a **** show of tribal, religious, and sectarian violence. It's mostly full of dictators and the overwhelming majority of civilians death and suffering has been by the local Muslim populace.

Are you worried about Muslims replacing white Christian Americans? Is it the language or dressing different or different skin color that makes one uneasy? Have you had specific interactions with Muslims or the Muslim community you have seen to suggest that they are planning something sinister?

If white Christian people hold disproportionate political and economic power in the US, why would and why should they voluntarily surrender it to any other group? Seems antithetical to human nature. Are there other ethnic/cultural/religious groups in the world that do this? Japan? Muslims? Chinese? Indians? Or is it only white Western nations that are expected to do this?

Maybe it's not as much fear as just common sense of one group being more comfortable with itself, which seems consistent with human nature and every other cultural group in the world.
 
If white Christian people hold disproportionate political and economic power in the US, why would and why should they voluntarily surrender it to any other group? Seems antithetical to human nature. Are there other ethnic/cultural/religious groups in the world that do this? Japan? Muslims? Chinese? Indians? Or is it only white Western nations that are expected to do this?

Maybe it's not as much fear as just common sense of one group being more comfortable with itself, which seems consistent with human nature and every other cultural group in the world.
Never said they should give up power. But as a citizen I don't need to accept that those in power use it to make false claims and demonize an entire group of people such as Muslims for political gain. It creates an environment where hate crime and violence against them is more acceptable.

The US at one time used to be more comfortable without Jews in power, without women in power, without blacks in power, without LGBTQ in power. Times changed. I guess you can say the hate and fear-mongering we are seeing is a natural response for some to seeing Muslims being elected and in power. It doesn't make it right.
 
Last edited:
Never said they should give up power. But as a citizen I don't need to accept that those in power use it to make false claims and demonize an entire group of people such as Muslims for political gain. It creates an environment where hate crime and violence against them is more acceptable.

The US at one time used to be more comfortable without Jews in power, without women in power, without blacks in power, without LGBTQ in power. Times changed. I guess you can say the hate and fear-mongering we are seeing is a natural response for some to seeing Muslims being elected and in power. It doesn't make it right.
It doesn't matter what you do or do not accept. You asked a series of questions, so I tried to answer them because I thought that was why you asked them.

You:

Are you worried about Muslims replacing white Christian Americans? Is it the language or dressing different or different skin color that makes one uneasy? Have you had specific interactions with Muslims or the Muslim community you have seen to suggest that they are planning something sinister?

Me:

Maybe it's not as much fear as just common sense of one group being more comfortable with itself, which seems consistent with human nature and every other cultural group in the world
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Now, since I was kind enough to answer your questions, will you kindly answer mine:

Me:

If white Christian people hold disproportionate political and economic power in the US, why would and why should they voluntarily surrender it to any other group? Seems antithetical to human nature. Are there other ethnic/cultural/religious groups in the world that do this? Japan? Muslims? Chinese? Indians? Or is it only white Western nations that are expected to do this?

You:

???
 
Your post essentially is making my case.

1. Life is not fair. Some people have different benefits compared to others. I am a physician, I know lots of docs, I have gotten friends/family to see docs the next day with just a quick text. During peek covid, a friend of a friend asked me if I could get her hubby out from an small ER with his dissection. There was no beds anywhere and he was told he could potentially die in the ER b/c there was no hospital that would accept. I made a call to a friend and he got a bed at a heart hospital.

2. Buffet and most billionaires contribute more than you or I could ever dream off. Look at Michael Dell and how much he has given. So you are right, compared to most billionaires, we contribute much less and the bottom 1/3 likely much less than docs. This "fair" share is just a made up phrase to demonize the rich. I bet you Nancy gives much less than most billionaires.

3. Docs do have "unfair" access to benefits compared to the bottom 1/3. You even said it yourself, they don't make enough. If you made as much as a billionaire, then you would get the same access?

4. Finally, your 1% loan articles is either extreme cases, personal favors, or blatantly false. Chatgpt agrees with me and it may approach 1% when the 10 Yr treasury yield was low. Mortgage rates was 2-3% in 2020 b/c the 10 yr treasury vield was 0.52%. Current Yeild is 4.7%. So yeah, if a billionaire got a loan around that time, they may have gotten a 1.5% loan. Just as people with good credit ratings had 15 fixed mortgage rates around this time of 2.1%. The horror right? Not fair? But I can tell you with certainty that no billionaires are getting bank loans at 1% right now unless banks are in the business of losing money. I texted a friend who is a VP at a large bank about this 1% loan in today's market, and he just laughed...... his quote "WTF are these people smoking".

I am done with debating this. If you think Billionaires are not paying their "fair" share and docs do not have "privilege" benefits, then no amount of facts will change it.

Just to be factually fair, Michael dell has committed 10B to charity. Buffett 60B, Bezo 4.7B, Musk 400+M plus 8B to his charitable foundation.
they do not contribute enough. you clearly have bought the koolaid in to believing that the ultra wealthy pay their fair share or contribute enough.

your friend 1. doesnt work with these people and 2. your friend is most likely covering up for them if he were and 3. this is a logical fallacy - appeal to authority. we dont know your friend or his credentials etc.


when they do contribute, its when their conscience bothers them enough when the realize how much they have gotten advantages from the system.


you seem to want to justify some people having privilege.

i am saying that the amount of privilege is extreme and damaging to those who have never and will never get any modicum of privilege.



fwiw, guess what, Copilot AI agrees with me.

1786449531399.png


so does google AI
1786449591133.png



and Wells Fargo even goes so far to print out their rates that show a difference up to 20 million. im pretty certain that the "secured overnight financing rate" would be downwardly adjusted for those with 1000 times that net worth.

 
It doesn't matter what you do or do not accept. You asked a series of questions, so I tried to answer them because I thought that was why you asked them.

You:

Are you worried about Muslims replacing white Christian Americans? Is it the language or dressing different or different skin color that makes one uneasy? Have you had specific interactions with Muslims or the Muslim community you have seen to suggest that they are planning something sinister?

Me:

Maybe it's not as much fear as just common sense of one group being more comfortable with itself, which seems consistent with human nature and every other cultural group in the world
As a citizen it does matter with who I vote for and where I contribute my money and effort. I may make no difference personally, but collectively it does matter if it is acceptable or not.

The question was directed at clubdeac in response to inflammatory/misleading post demonizing an entire religion. I was asking what he thinks specifically to understand. I get you are his buddy and are responding/defending on his behalf, or perhaps you understand how he thinks, so I did reply.

Now, since I was kind enough to answer your questions, will you kindly answer mine:

Me:

If white Christian people hold disproportionate political and economic power in the US, why would and why should they voluntarily surrender it to any other group? Seems antithetical to human nature. Are there other ethnic/cultural/religious groups in the world that do this? Japan? Muslims? Chinese? Indians? Or is it only white Western nations that are expected to do this?

You:

???
I already responded. First sentence in bold:

Never said they should give up power. But as a citizen I don't need to accept that those in power use it to make false claims and demonize an entire group of people such as Muslims for political gain. It creates an environment where hate crime and violence against them is more acceptable.

The US at one time used to be more comfortable without Jews in power, without women in power, without blacks in power, without LGBTQ in power. Times changed. I guess you can say the hate and fear-mongering we are seeing is a natural response for some to seeing Muslims being elected and in power. It doesn't make it right.
 
As a citizen it does matter with who I vote for and where I contribute my money and effort. I may make no difference personally, but collectively it does matter if it is acceptable or not.

The question was directed at clubdeac in response to inflammatory/misleading post demonizing an entire religion. I was asking what he thinks specifically to understand. I get you are his buddy and are responding/defending on his behalf, or perhaps you understand how he thinks, so I did reply.


I already responded. First sentence in bold:
It's really a bigger picture issue, but I think you already know the answers.

People prefer their own group. People who think, act, dress, believe, behave, etc. like they do. Just like you. You're obviously Muslim so you're defending your own group.

You're accepting of white Christians because your group is not the dominant group right now in the US, so you have to be. However, if the situation were reversed, your group likely wouldn't be as accepting. This is evidenced by the limited number of churches, Buddhist temples, synagogues, etc throughout the Islamic world.

Right now, you get the best of both worlds. You get to diversify and spread your beliefs, culture, and religion throughout the world while not allowing the same to happen throughout Muslim countries, as the relationship between the West and Islam is not reciprocal. You get to keep Muslim countries pure, yet the more power your group gains in the West, the less power other groups, including white Christians, have.

While the vast majority of all people from all groups, including Muslims, do not commit crime, the fear is that the average person does not typically end up having much power. Power is held by those smart/strong/ambitious enough to get it. So, if Muslims increase in power, the fear is that the extremist element, despite it not being the majority, will wield a disproportionate amount of power over the US. This is what happened in many Muslim countries, including Iran, and Americans overwhelmingly do not want to live this way.

I'm trying to answer the questions you posed. If you only want to converse with clubdeac, that's fine, but it may be better not to post publicly.
 
they do not contribute enough. you clearly have bought the koolaid in to believing that the ultra wealthy pay their fair share or contribute enough.

your friend 1. doesnt work with these people and 2. your friend is most likely covering up for them if he were and 3. this is a logical fallacy - appeal to authority. we dont know your friend or his credentials etc.


when they do contribute, its when their conscience bothers them enough when the realize how much they have gotten advantages from the system.


you seem to want to justify some people having privilege.

i am saying that the amount of privilege is extreme and damaging to those who have never and will never get any modicum of privilege.



fwiw, guess what, Copilot AI agrees with me.

View attachment 423125

so does google AI
View attachment 423126


and Wells Fargo even goes so far to print out their rates that show a difference up to 20 million. im pretty certain that the "secured overnight financing rate" would be downwardly adjusted for those with 1000 times that net worth.

1. "They don't Contribute enough" is the same mantra the poor says about docs. You are just Cherry Picking and this is my point. Most bottom half would say docs do not pay their fair share but that does not mean it is true. Let's just agree to disagree because it is factual that most Billionaires contribute more $$$, jobs, and GDP than you as a doc would do in a million life times.

2. Your AI research is flawed b/c you can't even understand what those numbers mean. Like I have said, I am sure there are some favors given to billionaires because they hold a fortune with the banks. Just like you get favors being a doc from other docs. BUT there is NO program where a Billionaire in today's market is getting 1% loans. Even your AI search clearly states that rates are SOFR +1-3%. Do you even understand what this means and if you do, then why are you still parroting that billionaires get 1% loans? Do you know what SOFR is? It is the Secured Overnight Financing Rate which is benchmarked to the US treasury rate. The Current SOFR is 3.6% so billionaires can get a current loan at 4.6%. Even Wells Fargo link you sent for a person with 20M+ AUM is getting SOFR+1.75 = 5%.

Wells Fargo puts better rates for the rich because they have safe collateral, why is this so hard to understand. Why would anyone give the same rate for a safe vs volatile backed collateral? Do you not understand basic economics, lending, and money supply? You even stated yourself that Billionaires would get a better rate than those over 20M... no kidding sherlock b/c they are safer BUT they are still pegged to the SOFR floor of 3.6%.

So why do you keep saying billionaires get a 1% loans. As my Banker friend said, "WTF are these people smoking". BANKS are not going to pay the gov 3.6%, lend it at 1% to a rich guy, and then take a 2.6% haircut UNLESS They have some other setup where the bank is making money on the other side.
 
It's really a bigger picture issue, but I think you already know the answers.

People prefer their own group. People who think, act, dress, believe, behave, etc. like they do. Just like you. You're obviously Muslim so you're defending your own group.

You're accepting of white Christians because your group is not the dominant group right now in the US, so you have to be. However, if the situation were reversed, your group likely wouldn't be as accepting. This is evidenced by the limited number of churches, Buddhist temples, synagogues, etc throughout the Islamic world.

Right now, you get the best of both worlds. You get to diversify and spread your beliefs, culture, and religion throughout the world while not allowing the same to happen throughout Muslim countries, as the relationship between the West and Islam is not reciprocal. You get to keep Muslim countries pure, yet the more power your group gains in the West, the less power other groups, including white Christians, have.

While the vast majority of all people from all groups, including Muslims, do not commit crime, the fear is that the average person does not typically end up having much power. Power is held by those smart/strong/ambitious enough to get it. So, if Muslims increase in power, the fear is that the extremist element, despite it not being the majority, will wield a disproportionate amount of power over the US. This is what happened in many Muslim countries, including Iran, and Americans overwhelmingly do not want to live this way.

I'm trying to answer the questions you posed. If you only want to converse with clubdeac, that's fine, but it may be better not to post publicly.

Your assumption is that nobody defends a group unless they are part of it. I don't need to be Muslim or some other minority to defend civil rights. One minority group being represented in the US government doesn't strip away your power, unless you see civil rights as a zero-sum game with all minorities as a threat.

Judging millions of American Muslim citizens based on what the Iranian regime does is guilt by association and typical fear-mongering. That's the same tactic used to scare the populace into saying Jews, women, blacks, or LGBTQ don't belong in power. For Jews it was/is the conspiracy of secret money or media control, for women that they will collapse the family unit, for blacks of a threat to whites and crime, for LGBTQ that they will 'spread' their lifestyle. Saying US Muslims will 'takeover' and impose 'sharia law' and 'enslave women' is the same scare tactic.

Of course you're free to answer on behalf of clubdeac. The missing context was why does comfort with being around white Christians necessarily result in demonizing Muslims as a whole? And the follow up is if it would better to learn about Muslims from other Muslims rather than social media posts denigrating them.
 
It's really a bigger picture issue, but I think you already know the answers.

People prefer their own group. People who think, act, dress, believe, behave, etc. like they do. Just like you. You're obviously Muslim so you're defending your own group.

You're accepting of white Christians because your group is not the dominant group right now in the US, so you have to be. However, if the situation were reversed, your group likely wouldn't be as accepting. This is evidenced by the limited number of churches, Buddhist temples, synagogues, etc throughout the Islamic world.

Right now, you get the best of both worlds. You get to diversify and spread your beliefs, culture, and religion throughout the world while not allowing the same to happen throughout Muslim countries, as the relationship between the West and Islam is not reciprocal. You get to keep Muslim countries pure, yet the more power your group gains in the West, the less power other groups, including white Christians, have.
i would put it to you - it seems you identify more as a white christian than as an American. the supposed uniqueness of America was supposed to be the melting pot aspect, that this was the only country where one could practice what they believed without fear of repression.

however, ask any minority, and may appear better in the US, it is still clearly not good.

While the vast majority of all people from all groups, including Muslims, do not commit crime, the fear is that the average person does not typically end up having much power. Power is held by those smart/strong/ambitious enough to get it. So, if Muslims increase in power, the fear is that the extremist element, despite it not being the majority, will wield a disproportionate amount of power over the US. This is what happened in many Muslim countries, including Iran, and Americans overwhelmingly do not want to live this way.

I'm trying to answer the questions you posed. If you only want to converse with clubdeac, that's fine, but it may be better not to post publicly.
i would also put to you - if the White christian nationalist movement becomes the majority, instead of what we have now , then this extremist element will impose its own totalitarian rule.

it is little difference between Sharia law and fascist rule.
 
i would put it to you - it seems you identify more as a white christian than as an American. the supposed uniqueness of America was supposed to be the melting pot aspect, that this was the only country where one could practice what they believed without fear of repression.

however, ask any minority, and may appear better in the US, it is still clearly not good.


i would also put to you - if the White christian nationalist movement becomes the majority, instead of what we have now , then this extremist element will impose its own totalitarian rule.

it is little difference between Sharia law and fascist rule.
exactly.

this is why america is better. BECAUSE of multinationalism... not in spite of it.

i have zero fear of muslims taking over, imposing sharia law, covering up american women's faces.

that is the kind of sh$t that far right lunatics love. they see a slanted youtube "documentary" of a muslim neighborhood in london or syrians in Sweden and all of a sudden we all have to pray 5 x/day and war hijabs.

reasonable immigration reform is fine. we cant let everyone in. but stop with the racism, b/c i know you hate that word, but that is really what it is all about
 
1. "They don't Contribute enough" is the same mantra the poor says about docs. You are just Cherry Picking and this is my point. Most bottom half would say docs do not pay their fair share but that does not mean it is true. Let's just agree to disagree because it is factual that most Billionaires contribute more $$$, jobs, and GDP than you as a doc would do in a million life times.

2. Your AI research is flawed b/c you can't even understand what those numbers mean. Like I have said, I am sure there are some favors given to billionaires because they hold a fortune with the banks. Just like you get favors being a doc from other docs. BUT there is NO program where a Billionaire in today's market is getting 1% loans. Even your AI search clearly states that rates are SOFR +1-3%. Do you even understand what this means and if you do, then why are you still parroting that billionaires get 1% loans? Do you know what SOFR is? It is the Secured Overnight Financing Rate which is benchmarked to the US treasury rate. The Current SOFR is 3.6% so billionaires can get a current loan at 4.6%. Even Wells Fargo link you sent for a person with 20M+ AUM is getting SOFR+1.75 = 5%.

Wells Fargo puts better rates for the rich because they have safe collateral, why is this so hard to understand. Why would anyone give the same rate for a safe vs volatile backed collateral? Do you not understand basic economics, lending, and money supply? You even stated yourself that Billionaires would get a better rate than those over 20M... no kidding sherlock b/c they are safer BUT they are still pegged to the SOFR floor of 3.6%.

So why do you keep saying billionaires get a 1% loans. As my Banker friend said, "WTF are these people smoking". BANKS are not going to pay the gov 3.6%, lend it at 1% to a rich guy, and then take a 2.6% haircut UNLESS They have some other setup where the bank is making money on the other side.
i noted that those were for up $20 million. the site states that numbers change from those with $200,000 collateral vs $20,000,000. i posted so you could see that there is a difference just from those 2 numbers. yet you seem to be denying that there can be a difference between those with $20 million vs those with $20000 million or $200,000 million....

and SOFR can be worked around especially when discussing the asset being used.

fwiw, even your chatGPT does state that billionaires can get sub 1% loan. it does note that it is not that common as a normal loan. then again, ultra wealthy are not normal and are not getting normal loans

1786468031109.png



multiple sites from multiple sources have reported on sub prime interest rates. i posted 2 of them. 2 AI sites have confirmed sub 1% loans to the ultra wealthy.

yet you continue to appeal to authority by quoting one anonymous supposed VP from some supposed bank who just laughs. who probably is not working at one of the private branches of the bank they work for.


you seem fine with the ultra wealthy being able to use their wealth to generate income where they never have to work - where their progeny never have to work for - and not commit equivalent amounts to benefit society. that is not unusual. so many americans have bought the idea that they belong in the oligarchy, or could possibly one day be part of said oligarchy.

it does disappoint me tho.
 
Your assumption is that nobody defends a group unless they are part of it. I don't need to be Muslim or some other minority to defend civil rights. One minority group being represented in the US government doesn't strip away your power, unless you see civil rights as a zero-sum game with all minorities as a threat.

Judging millions of American Muslim citizens based on what the Iranian regime does is guilt by association and typical fear-mongering. That's the same tactic used to scare the populace into saying Jews, women, blacks, or LGBTQ don't belong in power. For Jews it was/is the conspiracy of secret money or media control, for women that they will collapse the family unit, for blacks of a threat to whites and crime, for LGBTQ that they will 'spread' their lifestyle. Saying US Muslims will 'takeover' and impose 'sharia law' and 'enslave women' is the same scare tactic.

Of course you're free to answer on behalf of clubdeac. The missing context was why does comfort with being around white Christians necessarily result in demonizing Muslims as a whole? And the follow up is if it would better to learn about Muslims from other Muslims rather than social media posts denigrating them.
Guilt by association, fear mongering, etc. doesn't matter what labels you give it. You asked a question, and I'm giving you the answer. Doesn't matter if you feel it's right or wrong. I'm telling you the straightforward answer of why white Christians would be concerned about Muslims getting power.

If I am a white Christian conservative and I'm the majority of the country and I live in a county that is represented by a white Christian conservative, that representative is fighting for my way of life. If now a socialist holds his seat, that power is now given to the people who support socialism. So, yes, power is taken away from my group and given to another. Why would I want that?
 
i would put it to you - it seems you identify more as a white christian than as an American. the supposed uniqueness of America was supposed to be the melting pot aspect, that this was the only country where one could practice what they believed without fear of repression.

however, ask any minority, and may appear better in the US, it is still clearly not good.


i would also put to you - if the White christian nationalist movement becomes the majority, instead of what we have now , then this extremist element will impose its own totalitarian rule.

it is little difference between Sharia law and fascist rule.
Identify as a white Christian, lol!!!! New label for me, add it to the others.

Kindly give me one example of a nation where white Christian nationalists have taken total control. Once you give me this example, I will take a close look at it and see if it's something I would be for or against. Just one example, please.
 
i noted that those were for up $20 million. the site states that numbers change from those with $200,000 collateral vs $20,000,000. i posted so you could see that there is a difference just from those 2 numbers. yet you seem to be denying that there can be a difference between those with $20 million vs those with $20000 million or $200,000 million....

and SOFR can be worked around especially when discussing the asset being used.

fwiw, even your chatGPT does state that billionaires can get sub 1% loan. it does note that it is not that common as a normal loan. then again, ultra wealthy are not normal and are not getting normal loans

View attachment 423141


multiple sites from multiple sources have reported on sub prime interest rates. i posted 2 of them. 2 AI sites have confirmed sub 1% loans to the ultra wealthy.

yet you continue to appeal to authority by quoting one anonymous supposed VP from some supposed bank who just laughs. who probably is not working at one of the private branches of the bank they work for.


you seem fine with the ultra wealthy being able to use their wealth to generate income where they never have to work - where their progeny never have to work for - and not commit equivalent amounts to benefit society. that is not unusual. so many americans have bought the idea that they belong in the oligarchy, or could possibly one day be part of said oligarchy.

it does disappoint me tho.
We don't have an "oligarchy". Getting favorable loans and not having to work because of wealth is not the same thing as oligarchy.
 
Guilt by association, fear mongering, etc. doesn't matter what labels you give it. You asked a question, and I'm giving you the answer. Doesn't matter if you feel it's right or wrong. I'm telling you the straightforward answer of why white Christians would be concerned about Muslims getting power.

If I am a white Christian conservative and I'm the majority of the country and I live in a county that is represented by a white Christian conservative, that representative is fighting for my way of life. If now a socialist holds his seat, that power is now given to the people who support socialism. So, yes, power is taken away from my group and given to another. Why would I want that?

You're swapping political belief and religious identity. Wanting a candidate who shares your fiscal or social policies isn't the issue. Rejecting a candidate not due to their political position, but simply because they are Muslim assuming they are 'extremist' because of their faith is bigotry. Representation in America isn't restricted to one religion or race. That's a core principle of this country.

You do you. I'll stick to supporting candidates who defend equal civil rights for everyone whether they are white, black, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jew, female, or LGBTQ+.
 
You're swapping political belief and religious identity. Wanting a candidate who shares your fiscal or social policies isn't the issue. Rejecting a candidate because they are Muslim assuming they are 'extremist' because of their faith is bigotry. Representation in America isn't restricted to one religion or race. That's a core principle of this country.

You do you. I'll stick to supporting candidates who defend equal civil rights for everyone whether they are white, black, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jew, female, or LGBTQ+.
These are very different things. You're combining immutable properties like race with properties like religion/values/philosophies.

The first could be considered bigoted but there's nothing bigoted about not voting for someone who doesn't share your values.

Do you think it's bigoted if a devout Muslim doesn't vote for a devout Christian solely for that reason? I don't.
 
You're swapping political belief and religious identity. Wanting a candidate who shares your fiscal or social policies isn't the issue. Rejecting a candidate not due to their political position, but simply because they are Muslim assuming they are 'extremist' because of their faith is bigotry. Representation in America isn't restricted to one religion or race. That's a core principle of this country.

You do you. I'll stick to supporting candidates who defend equal civil rights for everyone whether they are white, black, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jew, female, or LGBTQ+.
I don't think most Americans would reject someone simply because they're Muslim. It depends on how much they conform.

If you have a Muslim or an Arab who is right-wing conservative, adamantly condemns the negative aspects of Islam, speaks English with no accent, is a veteran, wears Western garb, etc I don't think most white Christians would have an issue with voting for this person. Some would, but not most. This is different than someone who runs for office supporting Hamas, wears a tunic, has a wife who wears a niqab, etc.

It depends on the degree of conformity.

I don't know what you mean by you do you. You asked a question, and I gave you the answer. Isn't that the reason why you asked the question in the first place? It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but the answer is still the answer.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These are very different things. You're combining immutable properties like race with properties like religion/values/philosophies.

The first could be considered bigoted but there's nothing bigoted about not voting for someone who doesn't share your values.

Do you think it's bigoted if a devout Muslim doesn't vote for a devout Christian solely for that reason? I don't.
Yes I think a Muslim specifically not voting for a Christian ONLY because they are Christian is bigoted. And the same in the reverse. Christians have a wide set of values, just like Muslims or anyone else.

If you go back in the conversation, this discussion started with El Sayed. Clubdeac posted some social media and Youtube links about 'sharia law' and 'Muslim takeover' that have nothing to do with him. Here is a quote from a Republican Senator: "Michigan Democrats just voted to send a TERRORIST to the Senate.Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed is a RADICAL ISLAMIST who will do everything he can to destroy America."

This is a bigoted statement. It does not criticize his values or positions, just demonizes his identiity.
 
I don't think most Americans would reject someone simply because they're Muslim. It depends on how much they conform.

If you have a Muslim or an Arab who is right-wing conservative, adamantly condemns the negative aspects of Islam, speaks English with no accent, is a veteran, wears Western garb, etc I don't think most white Christians would have an issue with voting for this person. Some would, but not most. This is different than someone who runs for office supporting Hamas, wears a tunic, has a wife who wears a niqab, etc.

It depends on the degree of conformity.

I don't know what you mean by you do you. You asked a question, and I gave you the answer. Isn't that the reason why you asked the question in the first place? It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but the answer is still the answer.
I so wish you were right but some see only skin color or religion (if expressed outwardly). A black person can conform to every "American standard" and them will still be condemned by some (smaller than a majority but larger than an ultra minority of folks). Ditto for Muslim.

If you dont think that this is happening in the world then I dont know what to tell you.
 
Yes I think a Muslim specifically not voting for a Christian ONLY because they are Christian is bigoted. And the same in the reverse. Christians have a wide set of values, just like Muslims or anyone else.

If you go back in the conversation, this discussion started with El Sayed. Clubdeac posted some social media and Youtube links about 'sharia law' and 'Muslim takeover' that have nothing to do with him. Here is a quote from a Republican Senator: "Michigan Democrats just voted to send a TERRORIST to the Senate.Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed is a RADICAL ISLAMIST who will do everything he can to destroy America."

This is a bigoted statement. It does not criticize his values or positions, just demonizes his identiity.
I don't follow domestic politics as much as I probably should so I'm not too familiary with El Sayed or the Repub Senator but the first thing I'd want to know is why he labeled him as a radical and terrorist. If it's exclusively because he's muslim then I'm on your side with that one but I'd want to know his/her reasoning first.
 
i noted that those were for up $20 million. the site states that numbers change from those with $200,000 collateral vs $20,000,000. i posted so you could see that there is a difference just from those 2 numbers. yet you seem to be denying that there can be a difference between those with $20 million vs those with $20000 million or $200,000 million....

and SOFR can be worked around especially when discussing the asset being used.

fwiw, even your chatGPT does state that billionaires can get sub 1% loan. it does note that it is not that common as a normal loan. then again, ultra wealthy are not normal and are not getting normal loans

View attachment 423141


multiple sites from multiple sources have reported on sub prime interest rates. i posted 2 of them. 2 AI sites have confirmed sub 1% loans to the ultra wealthy.

yet you continue to appeal to authority by quoting one anonymous supposed VP from some supposed bank who just laughs. who probably is not working at one of the private branches of the bank they work for.


you seem fine with the ultra wealthy being able to use their wealth to generate income where they never have to work - where their progeny never have to work for - and not commit equivalent amounts to benefit society. that is not unusual. so many americans have bought the idea that they belong in the oligarchy, or could possibly one day be part of said oligarchy.

it does disappoint me tho.
1. No one is arguing that these groups has better terms Ultra Wealthy (Billionaiers) > Rich (Docs) > Middle Class > Poor >>> Poor with major debt. This is what loan rates are based on, how hard is it to understand this? No one is arguing that Buffet gets better rates than almost everyone else b/c his loans are essentially zero risks. This is how basic economics work..... You prove you are low risk, someone will bid a lower rate for your loan. Why do you think Buffet should get the same rate as You/I or even lower 1/3 with debt?

2. Your ChatGPT proves my point and you are just arguing to make your view make sense. First, No one is getting a 1% loan if the bank has to borrow for 3.6% from the fed. No bank is going to pay 3.6% from Uncle Sam then lend anyone at 1%. No ONE unless there are other ways for them to make back the 2.6% Gap. Second, if you read how Billionaires can borrow at at 1%, it is b/c they are borrowing against very liquid (cash like) that they have at the bank. IF I have $1M in the bank, and I ask for a 500K loan using my $1M, the bank could very well charge me 1% to borrow my own money. But if you read your chatgpt search and understand what is going on, you will realize that the banks are still making money off these low rate loans either by holding a large deposit, charging a large AUM fee, or some other arrangement. Regardless, the bank is NOT losing money on these loans. Dress it any way you want, but they are making money off these Billionaires and it is not just some magical 1% loan. Read and understand rather than parroting 1% without context.

Didn't you read that low rates for billionaires are unusual? Don't just look at edge cases without knowing the details. Just parroting the woe is me 1% for the rich is disingenuous.

I am done b/c you do not seek to learn or understand. You just care to prove some weird point that 1% Billionaire is not fair. Buffet has given more to the GDP/charity/taxes than you would in your lifetime x 100K. I would say that you have not paid your "Fair Share" if you really think about it. Maybe you should just write the IRS a check to pay your fair share b/c they will certainly cash it.

Final point, odd take to say I am fine with the rich generating income where they don't work. What a hypocritical view. The house you own, the stocks you have all generate value/income and you really have not done much work to generate that. When you pass your estate down to your kids, I guess you are a big part of the problem you are complaining about. This is the problem with socialism and socialist. Funny they become capitalists when they achieve great wealth. I have yet to see a billionaire socialist give back all their money to the IRS.
 
I so wish you were right but some see only skin color or religion (if expressed outwardly). A black person can conform to every "American standard" and them will still be condemned by some (smaller than a majority but larger than an ultra minority of folks). Ditto for Muslim.

If you dont think that this is happening in the world then I dont know what to tell you.
In a country of over 300 mil you'll find whatever you're looking for. It doesn't mean it's reflective of the whole.

I don't think black people are as hated as you may think. American black culture is very influential. In many ways, they essentially set the standard for music, fashion, what's cool, etc. and people all over the world try to emulate them.

I didn't go to a white high school, but I bet in these areas, if you have a cool black athletic male teenager, he would probably be admired more than anything else. The white kids would probably want to be his friends and he'd have a better chance at getting girls.

Am I wrong about this? Any people who went to a mostly white high school have an opinion on this?