Will Trump win again???

[BLADEMDA]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

You see any US Supreme Court Judges from Toledo-ever? So, it does matter and a lot.

And thanks for the counsel, but I didn’t ask or solicit it from you, so you can keep it to yourself. And as I mentioned, LSAT have direct correlations,so when you get a guy like Jim Jordan, who never passed the bar, from a school that is on the bottom 10 of all law schools, it does speak to the expertise and quality of representation the intelligence committee is providing.

“Intelligence Commitee” now that’s funny. The whole thing is a circus and sideshow. Political partisanship on all sides trying to prove a point which everyone already has an opinion on. Total waste of time

 

[BLADEMDA]

You "hate" socialism. That probably means that:
1. you're rich, and you're fed up with the state stealing money out of your pocket and/or
2. you have never been really poor and/or
2. you've let yourself be brainwashed all your life in hating a word or an idea you have not experienced. Like the xenophobes who hate non-WASP while living in Indiana.

I hate socialism, too, the totalitarian version. Even the Scandinavian one. But I think we should emulate European countries a bit more in protecting our less fortunate (yep, that's the word). What they call social democracy. And, by the way, I hate when they steal money from me, too, and call it taxes. But part of it is the price for CIVILIZATION.

To compare Warren/Sanders vs Obama is insane. The former are true socialist while the latter was more of a European Social democrat.

Dural Patrick entering this race is proof whether an Obama like figure can win the nomination. Let’s see how far Duval Patrick gets in a party dominated by 1/3 far left socialists.

 

[Mikkel]

People urging Hillary to enter the race is proof that the Democrat party has no real idea platform.

The Democrat candidates are either intersectional (Indian/female Kamala, Gay Buttiguidge, Indian/female Warren, Black/potato Booker, female Klobuchar/Gabbard), or outright pandering socialist (Warren, Sanders, Robert Francis O'Roarke).

Booker and O'Roarke answered debate questions in Spanish.

Free tuition and debt forgiveness (millennials).

Wealth confiscation.

Free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Gun confiscation.

High taxes.


Is there anything appealing?

 

[deleted643396]

I vote for policy not the politician. Trump is probably the most despicable person to occupy the OVAL OFFICE since Nixon. I think Nixon was worse but that is just splitting hairs.

Again, I have to choose between the socialist and the idiot narcissist to run the country. I hate socialism more than the current degenerate in the White House.

All I need as proof that Trump is despicable is his "turnover ratio." Can anyone name any other administration with this much turn over ever? I can look back as far as Jimmy Carter in terms of my life but I doubt there has ever been more people coming and going over 3 years than Trump's first term in office.

You should qualify your hatred of socialism with “the socialism that doesn’t benefit you.” Unless you hate:

-The police
-The fire department
-The military
-Public libraries
-Public schools
-Roads
-The CDC
-The FDA
-The NIH
-Any other governmental agency that tries to make sure we stay healthy and happy...to mediate the tug-of-war between corporate profit and public interest, which are not always in line.

Socialism is not an “all or nothing” principle. Socialism is people deciding that a production of a good or service is a shared responsibility. It exists on a continuum.

 

[Mikkel]

You should qualify your hatred of socialism with “the socialism that doesn’t benefit you.” Unless you hate:

-The police
-The fire department
-The military
-Public libraries
-Public schools
-Roads
-The CDC
-The FDA
-The NIH
-Any other governmental agency that tries to make sure we stay healthy and happy...to mediate the tug-of-war between corporate profit and public interest, which are not always in line.

Socialism is not an “all or nothing” principle. Socialism is people deciding that a production of a good or service is a shared responsibility. It exists on a continuum.

That's a false comparison to suggest socialism is beneficial because certain programs paid for through general government revenue are good.

It's like saying all corporations are socialist in principle because resources are shared.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You should qualify your hatred of socialism with “the socialism that doesn’t benefit you.” Unless you hate:

-The police
-The fire department
-The military
-Public libraries
-Public schools
-Roads
-The CDC
-The FDA
-The NIH
-Any other governmental agency that tries to make sure we stay healthy and happy...to mediate the tug-of-war between corporate profit and public interest, which are not always in line.

Socialism is not an “all or nothing” principle. Socialism is people deciding that a production of a good or service is a shared responsibility. It exists on a continuum.

Obama wasn’t a socialist compared to Sanders. Obama believed in high taxes and “you didn’t build that” to a bigger degree than I liked. Still, he was a moderate, left of center guy vs Sanders who is extreme left of center.

Your post about my view of socialism is a false narrative in the sense I understand my commitment to society and the social contract we all have in the USA.

Sanders is so far left that the only one I can think of farther left is Karl Marx himself. I bet Mr. Marx would get 1/4 of today’s Democrats to vote for him along with AOC’s endorsement.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Warren’s socialism will tear down capitalism and double our national debt. What we will be left with is a nation of people completely dependent on the government for their success and happiness. I can’t think of any version of our republic father from our founders’ vision than Karl Marx and Bernie Sanders/Warren.

 

[Matty44]

What I’ve been wondering lately, do you think the daily Orange Man Bad bashing will cool at all during a 2nd Trump term? I know the media is trying their hardest to hurt his chances at reelection. Once he is in his last term, any chance they stop dividing the country and try to help heal it at all?

And yes, obviously Trump is divisive too...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

What I’ve been wondering lately, do you think the daily Orange Man Bad bashing will cool at all during a 2nd Trump term? I know the media is trying their hardest to hurt his chances at reelection. Once he is in his last term, any chance they stop dividing the country and try to help heal it at all?

And yes, obviously Trump is divisive too...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This assumes he gets a second term, as I cited, several conservative outlets, like the National Review and American Spectator, say that he is in trouble in key states like, Michigan (badly), Arizona (turning purple to blue), Georgia and even Texas. And he would still need to sweep MI, PA and WI, which he did by a collective vote tally of about 75,000. His strategy is dubious, because it requires a River card to get a flush at the end, or in other words, he has to run the table with very few other options.

Midwest economic indicators show slowing in many sectors, so he may be a victim of bad timing on these key subject, which does not bode well to him sweeping these three states again— https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...fd41cc-f118-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

 

[Matty44]

You didn’t really answer my question...

But I’d say things look pretty good for him in battleground states

And even if Joe gets the nomination, the more he talks and the more that the country learns about his son, the less appealing he will be. Trumps pretty much gonna stay where he is with support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted643396]

Warren’s socialism will tear down capitalism and double our national debt. What we will be left with is a nation of people completely dependent on the government for their success and happiness. I can’t think of any version of our republic father from our founders’ vision than Karl Marx and Bernie Sanders/Warren.

Do you think the founders envisioned monopolistic corporations stifling innovation and competition by using their money for political power? I guess it’s up for interpretation, but I don’t. I look at Silicon Valley as a microcosm of our economy. It was once this bastion of innovation and competition. A place where someone with a good idea can bring it to life in the market and watch it compete. That doesn’t exist anymore. Any new company gets immediately bought and consolidated into one of the big 5 tech companies. The ideas get lost and forgotten. That’s happening throughout our economy in every single industry, including our own in healthcare. Innovation is down in favor of shareholder profits. That is a bad thing in the long run and will hurt us. The government needs teeth to prevent this unfettered, unregulated capitalism that only results in consolidation. Shareholder profit is a very poor marker of the general health of our economy, in my opinion.

 

[d9sccr]

I loved the documentary on Netflix - Inequality for All...worth a watch.

I agree - the ANSWER to significant wealth inequality is not straight forward and very complex. However, to say that it isn't a problem at all is....well...it's really surprising someone would say that.

Now I could take someone saying - there are historical cases where wealth inequality has destabilized some systems, but we are no there yet. That seems reasonable. Or to say, wealth inequality is only a problem when these conditions are met...x, y,z. That would also be reasonable.

But to argue that wealth inequality is not or never has been an issue is really, really strange. If someone makes this argument, you then have to seriously question ANYTHING or ANY argument they have ever made about anything. Because I suspect - there are many things going on in that person's head - and "reason" and high level abstract thought - likely is not. You would suspect that in that person, agenda trumps reason, and politics trumps empathy. But I don't want to guess...online forums are a hard way to get at these things.

Like everything else, income differential lies on a spectrum where the best answer is usually "everything in moderation".

Have we really met too much inequality in this country? Is it really impossible to achieve the American Dream today? Being a product of that, I don't believe that to be the case. My path to where I reside today wasn't as easy as some, but was there. Likewise, it was much easier than others, but who also have the opportunity still. Medicine, not just physicians, is filled with people making the American Dream a reality. But since I personally hate anecdotes as evidence:

Is the American Dream dead?

Today's young adults are increasingly less likely to earn more than their parents.

www.usatoday.com

Is the American dream really dead?

Research shows that poor people in the US are 20 times less likely to believe hard work will get them ahead than their (poorer) Latin American counterparts – with white Americans particularly pessimistic. What’s driving their despair?

www.theguardian.com

Read the articles, or don't. The general gist is the American Dream isn't dead, but is becoming increasingly unattainable. As JP suggests in that video, at least part of the issue is education. The appalling state of public education in both rural and urban areas across the country is an absolute disgrace, especially given the current state of technology. Some of that falls on the government, some of that falls on the family unit or lack thereof. If someone wants to raise my taxes to better fund schools, that's something I'm much more likely to support, but there needs to be some kind of cohesive plan that's actually going to improve outcomes, not just money at the matter.

For everyone advocating for more and more government control, please consider some of our biggest issues in at least the very recent past have the most government intervention; housing, healthcare, and student loans.

 

[d9sccr]

Do you think the founders envisioned monopolistic corporations stifling innovation and competition by using their money for political power? I guess it’s up for interpretation, but I don’t. I look at Silicon Valley as a microcosm of our economy. It was once this bastion of innovation and competition. A place where someone with a good idea can bring it to life in the market and watch it compete. That doesn’t exist anymore. Any new company gets immediately bought and consolidated into one of the big 5 tech companies. The ideas get lost and forgotten. That’s happening throughout our economy in every single industry, including our own in healthcare. Innovation is down in favor of shareholder profits. That is a bad thing in the long run and will hurt us. The government needs teeth to prevent this unfettered, unregulated capitalism that only results in consolidation. Shareholder profit is a very poor marker of the general health of our economy, in my opinion.

Money has always bought power and always will. Even with strict campaign finance reform, money will buy political power.

We can obviously see startups being bought out in Silicon Valley, but I'm not sure those ideas are dying with consolidation. I fail to see innovation being shut down in healthcare. I'd argue it's the exact opposite. There's been constant innovation in my short time. When I started, all spine surgery was done with fluoro, now we use Stealth guidance for everything and surgeries are half the length or even less, freeing up all kinds of resources. Everywhere I look I see new technology like this. I didn't see much with a quick search either. What are you basing this on?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Do you think the founders envisioned monopolistic corporations stifling innovation and competition by using their money for political power? I guess it’s up for interpretation, but I don’t. I look at Silicon Valley as a microcosm of our economy. It was once this bastion of innovation and competition. A place where someone with a good idea can bring it to life in the market and watch it compete. That doesn’t exist anymore. Any new company gets immediately bought and consolidated into one of the big 5 tech companies. The ideas get lost and forgotten. That’s happening throughout our economy in every single industry, including our own in healthcare. Innovation is down in favor of shareholder profits. That is a bad thing in the long run and will hurt us. The government needs teeth to prevent this unfettered, unregulated capitalism that only results in consolidation. Shareholder profit is a very poor marker of the general health of our economy, in my opinion.

Uber founder just sold $570 million worth of stock. The Silicon Valley dream is alive and well

The US govt will get a nice share of that money. We can argue over how much he should pay in taxes but Bernie would take 80 percent or more of it. That’s true socialism on a Warren/ Sanders scale.

 

[jw3600]

Uber founder just sold $570 million worth of stock. The Silicon Valley dream is alive and well

The US govt will get a nice share of that money. We can argue over how much he should pay in taxes but Bernie would take 80 percent or more of it. That’s true socialism on a Warren/ Sanders scale.

I mean no one needs more than $50M. That’s aleady insane money. I’m fine with 100% tax of income or a settlement /buyout for the amounts over 50 mil.

 

[Splenda88]

We all agree that Trump was using the US government to help his reelection bid, but does that really rise to the level of impeachment?

 

[deleted643396]

Uber founder just sold $570 million worth of stock. The Silicon Valley dream is alive and well

The US govt will get a nice share of that money. We can argue over how much he should pay in taxes but Bernie would take 80 percent or more of it. That’s true socialism on a Warren/ Sanders scale.

Let’s say in your apocalyptic nightmare Bernie Sanders gets elected and by some miracle he passes this imaginary 80% tax. In your particular example, the Uber founder would still have $114 million. By my estimation, that’s a pretty nice life. He’d be reasonably comfortable and might even be able to afford a nice BMW on that money. Maybe to avoid paying taxes, Uber can pay its drivers a bit more? At what point does wealth turn into greed?

One of the best and most successful innovations in recent memory is Tesla. The company disrupted an entire industry and steered them towards developing new technologies. Guess what? That would never have happened without “socialism.” Those EV tax credits were a big reason for Tesla’s success early on. That’s even with a billionaire owner.

 

[Matty44]

I mean no one needs more than $50M. That’s aleady insane money. I’m fine with 100% tax of income or a settlement /buyout for the amounts over 50 mil.

No one NEEDS more than $1M. I mean, seriously, lets just limit income to $100k/year, which is all anyone really NEEDs. Just tax the rest and redistribute it so everyone has an equal income. #Equity

 

[Splenda88]

Has Bernie ever announced what kind of tax bracket he will propose if (big if here) he got elected? I doubt people who are making less than 1/2 million $ will be affected that much. 2-5% increase in taxes on someone who is making 450k will not change that person's life.

 

[deleted87051]

We all agree that Trump was using the US government to help his reelection bid, but does that really rise to the level of impeachment?

I partly agree with this. Every sitting president who has hosted a $30k/plate fundraising dinner was using the power of the office to raise political donations. And every recent president has done this. The difference with trump is that he was using a foreign policy/national security decision to advance his partisan political objectives.

 

[Splenda88]

I partly agree with this. Every sitting president who has hosted a $30k/plate fundraising dinner was using the power of the office to raise political donations. And every recent president has done this. The difference with trump is that he was using foreign policy decisions to advance his partisan political objectives.

But impeach him is too harsh IMO, but I think it's probably a culmination of everything he has done that makes some people enough is enough. I think the republican party did not do him any favor by letting him get away with a lot of egregious things.

 

[jw3600]

No one NEEDS more than $1M. I mean, seriously, lets just limit income to $100k/year, which is all anyone really NEEDs. Just tax the rest and redistribute it so everyone has an equal income. #Equity

You’re a wildly annoying person to converse with.

 

[deleted126335]

The other thing that drives me nuts is the STUPIDITY (sorry, but I cannot avoid arrogance here) of electing "princes" from political families. I mean, if anything is a guarantee for corruption, that's it. Just go ahead and elect the same old boys' club. The Kennedys, the Landrieus, the Cuomos, the Bushes etc. How royally dumb is that? I don't care even if their daddy was Einstein. Also, talent usually skips the next generation.

I want self-made people, not well-connected f-cks who don't even know the prices in the grocery store.

Agree 100%. It smacks of aristocracy and royalty. Inherited wealth is one thing. Inherited power is something else.

 

[Matty44]

You’re a wildly annoying person to converse with.

Why, cause I point out the ridiculousness of your statement through sarcasm? No one should tell anyone else "Hey, you've made all the money you need, now just give the rest to the government." Sorry if pointing that out annoys you.


On a side note, I think this is the first post you've made that I've ever responded to...

 

[deleted87051]

No one NEEDS more than $1M. I mean, seriously, lets just limit income to $100k/year, which is all anyone really NEEDs. Just tax the rest and redistribute it so everyone has an equal income. #Equity

Everybody needs $5M. #Equity

 

[Matty44]

Everybody needs $5M.

It's perfectly fine to set a minimum goal that someone "needs" for retirement or whatever. To set a maximum above which the rest is confiscated is patently unamerican.

 

[jw3600]

It's perfectly fine to set a minimum goal that someone "needs" for retirement or whatever. To set a maximum above which the rest is confiscated is patently unamerican.

No. That’s where you’re wrong. And as many reasonable people pointed out when you start having billionaires you start having monopolies stifling innovation and competition (the pinnacles of the pros of America and capitalism no?). You get inherited power, people buy legislation, people create systems where there’s increasing underemployment. These are not good things for an economy long term. So to avoid these issues without limiting innovation and the drive to succeed you can create a max cap of wealth. It’s in alignment with an idea of checks and balances. And you can make the number something large (to avoid these stupid hypothetical arguments) and still accomplish the goal. No one can become a billionaire without abusing the system. That’s the root of the issue.

 

[Matty44]

No. That’s where you’re wrong. And as many reasonable people pointed out when you start having billionaires you start having monopolies stifling innovation and competition (the pinnacles of the pros of America and capitalism no?). You get inherited power, people buy legislation, people create systems where there’s increasing underemployment. These are not good things for an economy long term. So to avoid these issues without limiting innovation and the drive to succeed you can create a max cap of wealth. It’s in alignment with an idea of checks and balances. And you can make the number something large (to avoid these stupid hypothetical arguments) and still accomplish the goal. No one can become a billionaire without abusing the system. That’s the root of the issue.

So every billionaire is immoral and corrupt and earned there money via dirty tactics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted87051]

So every billionaire is immoral and corrupt and earned there money via dirty tactics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true to some degree. You cannot amass that type of fortune without pushing some moral or ethical boundaries.

 

[agammaglobulin]

If you tax people high enough, they will just leave the country. Especially when you are talking about people worth 100s of millions and billions. Then, as a country, you lose out on the financial benefit of selling them all the goods they are going to buy. We can argue about what is 'fair', but what is 'fact' is if you tax the ultra-wealthy enough, you will lose their money completely as they move themselves and their accounts elsewhere.

 

[Matty44]

This is true to some degree. You cannot amass that type of fortune without pushing some moral or ethical boundaries.

And this is known to you as a fact how?

Can you earn 1/2 a billion legitimately?

$100M?

Where’s the cutoff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Another great PR day for the House Reps. leading the impeachment inquiry-not.

As always, the following blistering critique comes from a fellow republican.

According to conservative political strategist Rick Wilson, the first day of the House impeachment hearings could hardly have gone worse for Donald Trump because his staunchest defenders — Repps. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) thoroughly embarrassed themselves and the GOP with their nationally televised antics.

In a brutally blunt column, Wilson scorched the two lawmakers and Trump’s other “skells, sycophants, and dead-end goons on the committee” for faceplanting spectacularly on just the first day of the hearings.

Wilson got right to the point by noting that the president is likely furious about how the first day of impeachment hearings played out.

“Wednesday’s opening act of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump was only going to end one way for Trump and his defenders, and that was badly,” he began. “In the face of two credible, non-partisan witnesses of unimpeachable character and service, the Trump House Clown Caucus brought their A-game, and instead of changing the dialogue and owning the libs they managed to validate the witnesses, embarrass themselves, and doubtlessly enrage the Audience of One.”

“You could practically hear him screaming all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue as his allies’ carefully constructed tower of bullsh*t collapsed under the matter-of-fact, up-the-middle baritone recitation of his plan from men who lived through the Ukraine scandal,” he continued, adding, “Trump relied on his shriveled, impotent House caucus to destroy Taylor and Kent, and the unfocused, pathetic performances his mooks put on must have left The Donald tearing his wig out.”

According to Wilson, Nunes was comically overwhelmed as was evidenced by his opening statement that did nothing to waylay the evidence against the president.

“On just the first day of impeachment hearings, the fantasy that the Republicans on the committee, led by the comically incompetent Devin Nunes, would shift the public dialogue from Trump’s overt corruption to Biden, Burisma, and loco conspiracy theories was utterly detonated,” he wrote, suggesting, “The idea that the Republicans would make the hearing about the original whistleblower was also shattered.”

“Nunes, a man no one confuses as a person with a first-, second-, or even third-class intellect, was so out of his depth and so uncomfortable that it was painful to watch,” he continued. “In the mayfly world of the Trump GOP, they act as if tomorrow will never come, and Gordon Sondland will never testify. They seem to believe that executive privilege will never be broken or the testimony of others ordered. Democrats need to emphasize that the hearsay question could be easily resolved by letting White House and State Department personnel testify.”

Comically incompetent and third class intellect ....that is one I need to save. So, tell me again, how again how it doesn’t matter where you went to law school or your background?

 

[deleted87051]

And this is known to you as a fact how?

Can you earn 1/2 a billion legitimately?

$100M?

Where’s the cutoff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know the rich fat cat old anesthesiologists that everyone complains about on this board? The ones who took advantage of others for years and then sold out? Multiply that times 10000 and you have an average billionaire.

 

[Matty44]

Another great PR day for the House Reps. leading the impeachment inquiry-not.

As always, the following blistering critique comes from a fellow republican.

According to conservative political strategist Rick Wilson, the first day of the House impeachment hearings could hardly have gone worse for Donald Trump because his staunchest defenders — Repps. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) thoroughly embarrassed themselves and the GOP with their nationally televised antics.

In a brutally blunt column, Wilson scorched the two lawmakers and Trump’s other “skells, sycophants, and dead-end goons on the committee” for faceplanting spectacularly on just the first day of the hearings.

Wilson got right to the point by noting that the president is likely furious about how the first day of impeachment hearings played out.

“Wednesday’s opening act of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump was only going to end one way for Trump and his defenders, and that was badly,” he began. “In the face of two credible, non-partisan witnesses of unimpeachable character and service, the Trump House Clown Caucus brought their A-game, and instead of changing the dialogue and owning the libs they managed to validate the witnesses, embarrass themselves, and doubtlessly enrage the Audience of One.”

“You could practically hear him screaming all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue as his allies’ carefully constructed tower of bullsh*t collapsed under the matter-of-fact, up-the-middle baritone recitation of his plan from men who lived through the Ukraine scandal,” he continued, adding, “Trump relied on his shriveled, impotent House caucus to destroy Taylor and Kent, and the unfocused, pathetic performances his mooks put on must have left The Donald tearing his wig out.”

According to Wilson, Nunes was comically overwhelmed as was evidenced by his opening statement that did nothing to waylay the evidence against the president.

“On just the first day of impeachment hearings, the fantasy that the Republicans on the committee, led by the comically incompetent Devin Nunes, would shift the public dialogue from Trump’s overt corruption to Biden, Burisma, and loco conspiracy theories was utterly detonated,” he wrote, suggesting, “The idea that the Republicans would make the hearing about the original whistleblower was also shattered.”

“Nunes, a man no one confuses as a person with a first-, second-, or even third-class intellect, was so out of his depth and so uncomfortable that it was painful to watch,” he continued. “In the mayfly world of the Trump GOP, they act as if tomorrow will never come, and Gordon Sondland will never testify. They seem to believe that executive privilege will never be broken or the testimony of others ordered. Democrats need to emphasize that the hearsay question could be easily resolved by letting White House and State Department personnel testify.”

Comically incompetent and third class intellect ....that is one I need to save. So, tell me again, how again how it doesn’t matter where you went to law school or your background?

Rick Wilson is a never Trump-er, it’s pretty disingenuous to call him a “fellow republican.”

When the first line of your article is, ‘We all knew this was gonna go bad for Trump,’ it’s pretty clear there’s not a unbiased breakdown to follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

You know the rich fat cat old anesthesiologists that everyone complains about on this board? The ones who took advantage of others for years and then sold out? Multiply that times 10000 and you have an average billionaire.

Cause you know most billionaires and how they made their money?

I’m sure there are plenty whl are corrupt and got loaded through under handed methods, but I’m sure there are plenty who aren’t too.

You’re doing (intentionally?) what Warren and Bernie do by trying to vilify the rich in order to justify unfair treatment via new tax laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Rick Wilson is a never Trump-er, it’s pretty disingenuous to call him a “fellow republican.”

When the first line of your article is, ‘We all knew this was gonna go bad for Trump,’ it’s pretty clear there’s not a unbiased breakdown to follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should know, it being politics, nothing is unbiased....but are you saying Rick Wilson is not republican, or just that you don’t like what he is saying.

 

[Matty44]

You should know, it being politics, nothing is unbiased....but are you saying Rick Wilson is not republican, or just that you don’t like what he is saying.

I’m saying you trying to pawn him off like it’s one of Trumps guys turning against him is disingenuous, that’s all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BLADEMDA]

It’s always easy to steal, I mean tax completely, other people’s money. Once you start “taxing” at levels greater than 70 percent it’s pure theft. That’s the kind of Marxism where only govt cronies like in Russia get rich through bribes and theft.

At some point taxation becomes theft. One moves from a social contract to a System of complete redistribution. While it may be in style to vilify the rich the end result of a wealth tax is less innovation and lower GDP.

 

[BLADEMDA]

If the govt has the moral right to tax billionaires at 90 percent and millionaires at 75 percent then don’t complain when they come for 1/2 your income over $400,000. As the debt mounts and social programs like Medicare for all begin to take hold you should expect the definition of “wealthy” to include a lot more citizens with incomes just over $125,000.

The end result of these massive taxes is a lot less productivity and an underground economy to avoid taxes. These policies never work and always result in a poorer nation for all of us.

 

[BoolaHI]

The Republican Party is larger than just one person, and hopefully carries a variety of views and perspectives. And I never said he was Trump”s guy, nor did I insinuate it, I said again, he is a “fellow republican”—period.

The fact that they are both part of the same party literally means they are fellow republicans. If you attended the same church or school, you would be fellow church goers and or fellow classmates, no difference here. So, stop taking my rather clear words and say they are something else....

 

[Matty44]

It’s always easy to steal, I mean tax completely, other people’s money. Once you start “taxing” at levels greater than 70 percent it’s pure theft. That’s the kind of Marxism where only govt cronies like in Russia get rich through bribes and theft.

At some point taxation becomes theft. One moves from a social contract to a System of complete redistribution. While it may be in style to vilify the rich the end result of a wealth tax is less innovation and lower GDP.

But its okay to steal from someone as long as they didn't EARN their money, and we all know all rich people got their money nefariously.

Also, its okay to punch Nazis.

 

[deleted171991]

Agree 100%. It smacks of aristocracy and royalty. Inherited wealth is one thing. Inherited power is something else.

Interestingly (or not, given what I said before), some people are not at all bothered of all the ongoing nepotism in the White House. Just that, and it would be enough for me not to elect.

Also, somebody who plays quid-pro-quo with Ukraine about a political opponent would never do that when about the family business? All those governmental trips of Jared Kushner and Ivanka were only about the national interest? Is anybody really as naive as to believe that?

 

[Matty44]

The Republican Party is larger than just one person, and hopefully carries a variety of views and perspectives. And I never said he was Trump”s guy, nor did I insinuate it, I said again, he is a “fellow republican”—period.

The fact that they are both part of the same party literally means they are fellow republicans. If you attended the same church or school, you would be fellow church goers and or fellow classmates, no difference here. So, stop taking my rather clear words and say they are something else....

Oh come now Mr lawyer, you know exactly what you were insinuating. Wilson is on record saying about Trump supporters... "But the fact of the matter is, most of them are childless single men who masturbate to anime. They’re not real and political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity. "

Just another "fellow republican" turning on Trump. 😕

 

[BoolaHI]

Oh come now Mr lawyer, you know exactly what you were insinuating. Wilson is on record saying about Trump supporters... "But the fact of the matter is, most of them are childless single men who masturbate to anime. They’re not real and political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity. "

Just another "fellow republican" turning on Trump. 😕

Wow, you have some really interesting reading material. So, since we are in the business of insinuating, are yiu part of this bizarre collective of non voluntary celibacy folks and their ilk? Just curious, like what kind of finger foods do y’all bring to your book club readings and the sort?

 

[Matty44]

Former not true. Latter, absolutely, without a doubt. (I am talking about the WW2 ones.)

I guess you're not familiar, but the latter was a reference to the SJW/Antifa crew who call Trump supporters nazis and then claim its ok to commit violence against them cause of their status as a nazi.

 

[BoolaHI]

Seems Nunes, is held in very high regard everywhere— Getty Images
If you were on trial on national television, facing the possible loss of your job and the probable loss of what remains of your reputation, you might not place your fate in the hands of Devin Nunes.

Nunes is a one-time dairy farmer who now milks the bursting udders of an entire herd of conspiracy-minded cows.

Mad cow disease had the rare power to leap across species through an unusually mysterious vector known as a prion. Mad Devin disease appears similarly devastating to the human brain through an unusually mysterious vector known as Vladimir Putin.

Nunes led the herd in arguing that this is a victimless crime – the Ukraine president got his stupid missiles anyhow
The California congressman – who somehow qualified as the most senior Republican on the House intelligence committee – opened his defense of Donald Trump with a long moo about Moscow and the Democrats’ interest in the Mueller investigation.

“After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July 24, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian,” Nunes explained, “on July 25 they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is Republicans’ dealings with Ukraine.”


This was a curious turn, even for the nonsensical Nunes. In the court of American public opinion (where we’re told this impeachment thing will really play out), the concept of innocent Russian handshaking is not entirely obvious.

It also seemed like a rookie mistake to suggest that the impeachment of the president was an indictment of all Republican dealings with the former Soviet Union.

“In the blink of an eye, we’re asked to simply forget about Democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had ‘more than circumstantial evidence’ of collusion between President Trump and the Russians,” Nunes said, reviving the Democrats’ case against Donald Trump in ways that didn’t seem entirely helpful to Donald Trump.

 

[Matty44]

Wow, you have some really interesting reading material. So, since we are in the business of insinuating, are yiu part of this bizarre collective of non voluntary celibacy folks and their ilk? Just curious, like what kind of finger foods do y’all bring to your book club readings and the sort?

I guess this is your attempt at humor....hold on....

Lemme try and break it down here. So me posting a quote from an MSNBC tv interview somehow translates into my reading material? Am I right so far?

And then somehow you're agreeing with Wilson, which, since I'm a Trump supporter makes me a unwilling virgin who lives in my moms basement. Yeah?

Finally, as we all know, single lonely virgins have monthly meetings, hence the book club comments?

Is that all right?




Sorry, amidst all the thought it took to try and breakdown what you said, I forgot to laugh.

 

[BoolaHI]

I guess this is your attempt at humor....hold on....

Lemme try and break it down here. So me posting a quote from an MSNBC tv interview somehow translates into my reading material? Am I right so far?

And then somehow you're agreeing with Wilson, which, since I'm a Trump supporter makes me a unwilling virgin who lives in my moms basement. Yeah?

Finally, as we all know, single lonely virgins have monthly meetings, hence the book club comments?

Is that all right?




Sorry, amidst all the thought it took to try and breakdown what you said, I forgot to laugh.

So, that means you are not going to divulge what’ y’all eat? And as they say in your circles (the one you specifically provided by circuitous conflation of some random Wilson comment) if the non voluntary celibacy hat fits, go ahead and wear it...

 

[Matty44]

So, that means you are not going to divulge what’ y’all eat? And as they say in your circles (the one you specifically provided by circuitous conflation of some random Wilson comment) if the non voluntary celibacy hat fits, go ahead and wear it...

Sorry, don't think I could fit it over my nazi...I mean, MAGA...hat.

 

[deleted643396]

If you tax people high enough, they will just leave the country. Especially when you are talking about people worth 100s of millions and billions. Then, as a country, you lose out on the financial benefit of selling them all the goods they are going to buy. We can argue about what is 'fair', but what is 'fact' is if you tax the ultra-wealthy enough, you will lose their money completely as they move themselves and their accounts elsewhere.

I still haven’t heard where all these billionaires will move to if we raise taxes? According to Wikipedia, California and New York have the largest number of billionaire residents in the United States. Those two states are not exactly known for being tax havens.