2020 Election
Quote: AZDuffmanProbably? Definitely’. How many women go on “60 Minutes” to defend their cheating husband? How many blame the GOP for his cheating while they stay with him?
Usually the ones doing a money grab.
Usually you realize it when the guy loses power.
If Melania files for divorce within 3 months of his leaving office, then you know what type of woman defends their cheating husband
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm just calling her out for what I have seen. It is not in question that she both defended Bill's cheating as well as her "vast right wing conspiracy" comment. I have never spoken to her either, and hope to go to my grave being able to say that.
Biggest accomplishment on tombstone
"Never spoke to Hillary (just spoke about her)"
Trump still won’t win California, but more nonsense from the land of sh#t in the streets.
I see paying $6 for a bottle of water my right as an American flyer. Obviously SF doesn’t believe this.
It is more than "laughable" that "somebody" actually put up a post virtually stating that.Quote: SteverinosOf course it was the motivation. I found it laughable somebody would suggest it wasn’t.
"Bloomberg looked into the 2016 individual returns data in detail for some additional insights illustrated in the charts below:Quote: SOOPOOTrillions in unpaid taxes? You mean that there was a tax law that the wealthy just chose to ignore? That the IRS just turns a blind eye to?
THE WEALTHY (top 1%) pay HALF OF ALL THE FREAKING TAXES! (My guess---- Sancho will give exact percentage.... talking federal taxes here) THE BOTTOM 40% pay close to NO taxes!
LEACHED FROM US??????????????? Like you have some inalienable right to take money from "THE WEALTHY" because they are wealthy and you are not?
I have said this a bazillion times...... I'm ok paying 20 times as much in taxes as the guy sitting next to me at Cracker Barrel, just freaking don't tell me I'm not paying my fair share because it isn't 25 times as much!
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes."
PS. Was that Cracker Barrel in Depew? The ones in Las Vegas are having quite a few difficulties.
At least they're bipartisan in view of how Kerry and others have been eviscerated. Vets did not fare better in the House, according to Politico:Quote: SteverinosIt's a ridiculous thing to say. Watch how easy it is:
There's actually more evidence to suggest the "average conservative" hates veterans. Look how they've treated McCain and Mueller when neither sold their soul to Trump, a guy who faked a disability to avoid serving.
History won't be kind to those folks.
"Democrats united to defeat a $2 billion bill to replenish for six months the emergency Veterans Choice Program, which subsidizes private medical care outside the Veterans Affairs Department for veterans facing lengthy wait times and is set to run dry in August."
Quote: SanchoPanzaAt least they're bipartisan in view of how Kerry and others have been eviscerated. Vets did not fare better in the House, according to Politico:
"Democrats united to defeat a $2 billion bill to replenish for six months the emergency Veterans Choice Program, which subsidizes private medical care outside the Veterans Affairs Department for veterans facing lengthy wait times and is set to run dry in August."
Efforts by the right to privatize have nothing to do with fully funding and staffing the VA.
Quote: AZDuffmanWill be thrown out, probably at a low level. CA cannot add requirements to be POTUS outside the Constitution. Other Blue states are trying similar laws. Amazing how in their heads Trump is.
There already are laws in most states that add requirements that are not in the Constitution in order to place a name on the state's ballot.
The most common one is that independents running for president must file a petition in the states, with various signature requirements, in order to be listed on the ballot.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
-Blaming immigrants for societies problems. Contamination. Blaming minorities.
-Blaming feminization of society
- Emphasizing nationalism. Calling people unpatriotic
- Blaming leftist for anything they haven't blamed anyone else for.
- Proclaiming the downfall of society because of their perception of increasing decadence. Scapegoating.
- Worshiping authoritarianism -- well at least Trump often loves it.
But as long as it's still missing some elements it only resembles full on fascism.
Quote: rxwineIt's also very easy to compare Trumpism to fascism.
-Blaming immigrants for societies problems. Contamination. Blaming minorities.
-Blaming feminization of society
- Emphasizing nationalism. Calling people unpatriotic
- Blaming leftist for anything they haven't blamed anyone else for.
- Proclaiming the downfall of society because of their perception of increasing decadence. Scapegoating.
- Worshiping authoritarianism -- well at least Trump often loves it.
But as long as it's still missing some elements it only resembles full on fascism.
So predictable as if it comes from some sort of SOP manual.
Liberals first go to is racism in order to deflect from reality. Liberals pretty much blast weaponized political correctness pushing the racial divide every hour every day. Why?
Here's hoping everyone will realize that the only thing the liberals that want to rule the world care about is defending the weaponizing of political correctness. The ability to say if you don't vote with us then your a racist, bigot, sexist, or whatever latest descriptive word of the day is.
This is exactly why Trump keeps walking them into traps time and again. If Trump says something not politically correct and they ignore it they lose their power.
Quote: rxwineYeah, sure it's going to happen any minute. Sleep with one eye open MaxP
It’s not “going to happen any minute”. It’s already happening.
Quote: SteverinosI was impressed with Tulsi Gabbard the other night:
Of course. She’s agrees with Trump.
I posted this interview Gabbard had with Colbert a few months ago, and said she would be turned into a non-person.
Until the debates, only Fox has given her any air time. Lots of it. Google still refuses to take any of her adds, and she’s been smeared by the state run media as what she calls a ‘Kremlin Stooge’.
Her crime is opposing Obama’s war in Syria. As she told Cobert, it was started "covertly by the CIA and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda because it providing equipment and training to these terrorist groups’’.
If the Nobel Peace Prize winner wasn’t re-elected in 2012, the Syrian conflict that he started in 2011 with the CIA, would have ended quickly and there would never have been a Libyan civil war, or a genocidal ISIS Caliphate.
He was a terrible President.
Hundreds of thousands of innocents would be alive today, and the invasion of Europe by millions of refugees would not have happened.
It’s going to get a lot worse for Europe. Turkey took in 3.5 million refugees and is threatening to send them to Europe unless 82 million Turks are given visa-free access to the EU nations.
"If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience." — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu
Europe is screwed either way.
Erdogan wants EU membership for Turkey.
When this happens, the largest EU member, by population, will be Islamic, 82 million Turks will have unimpeded access to EU nations, and the European border will lie in Syria.
All because of Obama.
Quote: FaceNo disrespect intended, none whatsoever. But I said "ultra wealthy".
I wouldn't deign to ask, but I think we can safely assume my comment refers to no one here.
Well it was my goal to be ultra wealthy.... I just failed! So my point would be that the scoundrel that is our President, for the one year that his taxes were leaked, paid more in taxes than perhaps the sum of all the active members of this forum. Americans have two choices, to be thankful for his 38 million dollars, or to think that his "fair share" should be more.
If he broke a law and didn't pay what the law proscribed, you don't think the IRS would have gone after him in his pre Presidential years? I'd guess he is in some fashion audited every year.
Quote: MaxPenSo predictable as if it comes from some sort of SOP manual.
Your post was crap, which is why I posted that response. This one is not any better.
Quote: Bozhttps://thepointsguy.com/news/you-soon-wont-be-able-to-buy-a-plastic-water-bottle-at-san-francisco-airport/
Trump still won’t win California, but more nonsense from the land of sh#t in the streets.
I see paying $6 for a bottle of water my right as an American flyer. Obviously SF doesn’t believe this.
I remember in the 1990s when the lefty loons said we drank too much pop and we needed to drink more water, Now this.
Quote: Dalex64There already are laws in most states that add requirements that are not in the Constitution in order to place a name on the state's ballot.
The most common one is that independents running for president must file a petition in the states, with various signature requirements, in order to be listed on the ballot.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Not a valid comparison. Requiring signatures is to show support, otherwise you would have hundreds of even thousands of cranks wanting to be listed. Requiring taxes be released is an individual requirement, illegal, and of no real purpose. Opens the door to requiring anything.
State that thinks it has the right to demand tax returns to be on the ballot scrubs the record of Kamala!
I would like to think the jealousy, anger and hatred toward others is not indicative of the average Dem today. But if one only judged the party by many of the posters here, it would be easy to say the party is dying.
Add in the views of their Presidential candidates and it’s obvious a fight for who the party represents is coming.
Quote: BozThe Democratic Party was built on hard working Americans in Union and non Union families.
I would like to think the jealousy, anger and hatred toward others is not indicative of the average Dem today. But if one only judged the party by many of the posters here, it would be easy to say the party is dying.
Add in the views of their Presidential candidates and it’s obvious a fight for who the party represents is coming.
JFK could not be a Democrat today. I was raised in a Democrat household. The party left me. My dad remained more loyal, but I eventually showed him that the party stopped representing him years before. He was a union guy so it took time.
The Democrat Party openly wrote off working class Whites by 2016. It has always been one coalition or another, but the last 30 years the subgroups have less and less in common. Sometimes they are directly opposed interests. e.g.: UAW workers building Ford F-150 vs. Global Warming believers.
We may be watching a generational shift. The 2020 primary is indicting the future of the Democrat Party is "unless you can claim a minority group you need not apply." Biden is grandfathered in, as are Reid and a few others. But make no mistake, the radical wing is rising. At what point do the saner elements of the coalition jump ship?
We have people who make it appear their sole purpose left in life is to help others get every free government program they can find. But they are angry at people who are paying large amounts in taxes to support the 47% who pay ZERO in FIT, yet collect the benefits. And can say with a straight face others are not paying their "fair share".
In a sane world they would be laughed at but somehow they complain Trump isn't the sane one.
Maybe those of us working as hard as possible to make as much as possible for our future are actually the insane ones in their world.
Quote: BozYou see it here with the jealousy and anger towards a doctor who saves lives almost everyday and isn't even a Trump fan. Yet he takes abuse and is made to feel guilty for paying more in taxes than a majority of members combined.
We have people who make it appear their sole purpose left in life is to help others get every free government program they can find. But they are angry at people who are paying large amounts in taxes to support the 47% who pay ZERO in FIT, yet collect the benefits. And can say with a straight face others are not paying their "fair share".
In a sane world they would be laughed at but somehow they complain Trump isn't the sane one.
Maybe those of us working as hard as possible to make as much as possible for our future are actually the insane ones in their world.
I hear you, I can't speak for other left-leaners, but I'm listening.
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the FIT entirely (except Social Security and Medicare) and instead having a Universal Sales Tax, but I would have a lot more stuff that constitutes a, "Sale." Property would count as a sale for sales tax purposes, maybe stock purchases (not sure about that one); basically just most things in which money is changing hands from one person or entity to another.
If that were to happen, essentially, everyone pays a, "Fair share," of taxes because they are taxed based upon what they are buying. If you have less money, then you are buying less stuff and you pay less in taxes. The tax rate would be the same for everyone.
If there's one really good argument against the Universal Sales Tax, it would be that the poor would likely pay the tax disproportionately high as a percentage of their income. This could be somewhat offset by having very basic necessities (such as food, maybe clothing under a certain $$$ amount per article of clothing) exempt from the tax.
When it comes to the paragraph above, one example is a toll stop. Everyone pays the same amount to go through a toll stop, but fi you are poor, whatever the amount is it represents a greater percentage of your total income by virtue of the fact that your annual income is simply lower.
Far be it from me to select a specific percentage rate that the rich, 'Should be,' paying, but certainly it becomes unfairly high at some point. I'm not making any statement about whether or not we are at or near that point yet, because I'm honestly not sure, but there is a point where it becomes too high.
Quote: SOOPOOWell it was my goal to be ultra wealthy.... I just failed! So my point would be that the scoundrel that is our President, for the one year that his taxes were leaked, paid more in taxes than perhaps the sum of all the active members of this forum. Americans have two choices, to be thankful for his 38 million dollars, or to think that his "fair share" should be more.
If he broke a law and didn't pay what the law proscribed, you don't think the IRS would have gone after him in his pre Presidential years? I'd guess he is in some fashion audited every year.
That's the attitude I'm trying to snap. And while we're talking IRS...
Yes, they go after them. But you see, you have 100,000 agents processing hundreds of millions of people. You ever misreport? I have. They tell you that you messed it up and you can either pay up or contest. You and me just pay it. What the hyper wealthy do is contest and obstruct. What's a million in lawyer fees when it saves them 10? Since the IRS cannot afford in either time or money to pursue tax liability down to the penny, they often settle. Boom. IRS is sated and the hyper rich just f#$%ed us out of millions.
Obama got you talking retirement. What would you say to me if I said Medicaid pay was still a lot of money and you should be "thankful" for getting that?
My point stands. There are many EBT experts here lamenting some poor and his $192 a month. To show how utter ridiculous you are, in 2012 GE alone sheltered over $30mmm, that's THIRTY BILLION, in offshore accounts, avoiding a $3mmm, that's THREE BILLION, dollars in tax liability. That's ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED and EIGHTY THREE poors worth of EBT for General Electric alone.
Estoban bought a pack of HoHo's. H Lawrence Culp Jr bought another helicopter.
Jesus Christ, guys...
Quote: EvenBobYeah, I want advice from some redneck
making videos in his garage. No thanks.
Really. Don't we have enough of that here? Already this morning I learned how to make sure your kids speak proper English by smacking them around, and gotten a lesson of how the poor should spend their money from a millionaire. If a millionaire cant teach you how to spend money you don't have, who can?
Quote: AZDuffmanJFK could not be a Democrat today. I was raised in a Democrat household. The party left me. My dad remained more loyal, but I eventually showed him that the party stopped representing him years before. He was a union guy so it took time.
The Democrat Party openly wrote off working class Whites by 2016. It has always been one coalition or another, but the last 30 years the subgroups have less and less in common. Sometimes they are directly opposed interests. e.g.: UAW workers building Ford F-150 vs. Global Warming believers.
We may be watching a generational shift. The 2020 primary is indicting the future of the Democrat Party is "unless you can claim a minority group you need not apply." Biden is grandfathered in, as are Reid and a few others. But make no mistake, the radical wing is rising. At what point do the saner elements of the coalition jump ship?
You are just saying that to establish your street credibility, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Quote: billryanYou are just saying that to establish your street credibility, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I'm the one who knocks.
Quote: billryanReally. Don't we have enough of that here? Already this morning I learned how to make sure your kids speak proper English by smacking them around, and gotten a lesson of how the poor should spend their money from a millionaire. If a millionaire cant teach you how to spend money you don't have, who can?
Actually Bill we learn it from you. Driving people around to ensure they get every benefit possible. Becoming a de facto expect on Government benefits for no personal gain, just kindness in your heart.
If that isn’t spending money you don’t have, not sure what is. Or doesn’t it count when it’s others money?
It’s oK, Billy won’t see this.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot a valid comparison. Requiring signatures is to show support, otherwise you would have hundreds of even thousands of cranks wanting to be listed. Requiring taxes be released is an individual requirement, illegal, and of no real purpose. Opens the door to requiring anything.
Sure it is valid. Just as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the requirement of either winning a party primary, or gathering signatures to appear on the ballot, or allowing anyone on the ballot for any reason (thousands of cranks) if they wanted to.
Imposing a primary win or a petition requirement is neither mandated or forbidden by the Constitution.
Are the cranks not old enough or lived here for not enough time or not citizens? The door is ready open to require anything. Either those are the only three requirements or they are not.
Whether or not it is an "individual requirement" (whatever that means to you) or not is irrelevant.
Now, I know you don't usually put "in my opinion" on your posts, so it is difficult to tell if you are citing some law, or just declaring how you think things ought to be.
Quote: Dalex64Sure it is valid. Just as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the requirement of either winning a party primary, or gathering signatures to appear on the ballot, or allowing anyone on the ballot for any reason (thousands of cranks) if they wanted to.
Imposing a primary win or a petition requirement is neither mandated or forbidden by the Constitution.
Are the cranks not old enough or lived here for not enough time or not citizens? The door is ready open to require anything. Either those are the only three requirements or they are not.
Whether or not it is an "individual requirement" (whatever that means to you) or not is irrelevant.
Now, I know you don't usually put "in my opinion" on your posts, so it is difficult to tell if you are citing some law, or just declaring how you think things ought to be.
Not only that but AZ suggestion that seeing tax returns is for no good reason belies the history of tax returns being openly submitted
The practice of politicians showing their returns started after Nixon/Agnew and Agnew turned out to have cheated on his taxes. The American public does not want to vote into office tax cheats. The very next candidates began releasing their returns voluntarily to prove they were fiscally responsible tax paying citizens.
Under that historical context it not only makes Trump look bad for not releasing them but AZ for claiming the tax return insight is meaningless
Quote: darkozNot only that but AZ suggestion that seeing tax returns is for no good reason belies the history of tax returns being openly submitted
The practice of politicians showing their returns started after Nixon/Agnew and Agnew turned out to have cheated on his taxes. The American public does not want to vote into office tax cheats. The very next candidates began releasing their returns voluntarily to prove they were fiscally responsible tax paying citizens.
Under that historical context it not only makes Trump look bad for not releasing them but AZ for claiming the tax return insight is meaningless
Key is voluntarily. Which is why the CA law is unconstitutional. It Trump had cheated somehow the annual audit would have picked it up.
What if we made the same law for medical records? Bill Clinton would have been denied ballot access. Sorry but a state cannot add requirements for POTUS.
So, they may not even address the merit part and just overrule it because of targeting trump. So, I can buy, it may get overturned in this case.
NY Post cover shows New Yorkers reacting to their Mayor de Blasio running for President
Quote: SteverinosI don't think I've ever seen ONE video where he offers unsolicited advice.
If he's making videos in his garage,
it's POV/commentary/advice.
Every time he says look at this
or that, it's advice.
Quote: AZDuffmanKey is voluntarily. Which is why the CA law is unconstitutional. It Trump had cheated somehow the annual audit would have picked it up.
What if we made the same law for medical records? Bill Clinton would have been denied ballot access. Sorry but a state cannot add requirements for POTUS.
If California had this same law for medical records in 1992, Clinton still would have won in a landslide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
The 10th amendment of the constitution should protect the state from being able to do virtually whatever they want with their elections. But we all know how much Trump hates the constitution, specifically states rights, so there is a good chance he would try to fight against this. The first amendment should protect the political parties from being able to do whatever they want to for their nomination process, so CA Republicans could very well give all their support to Trump even with him doing everything possible to keep his financial records hidden.
Quote: darkozThe American public does not want to vote into office tax cheats.
American voters in the 1960s didn't want to. American voters in 2016 had absolutely no problem with it
Another great day in America for Trump supporters?
Quote: ams288Another great day in America for Trump supporters?
Sick. Very sick.
What kind of person would post something like that?
Quote: TankoSick. Very sick.
What kind of person would post something like that?
Boo-effing-hoo.
Quote: SteverinosHistory won’t be kind to those that were complicit.
Eternity may not be that great for them, either. Selling ones soul has long term negative value.
Quote: TomGIf California had this same law for medical records in 1992, Clinton still would have won in a landslide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
The 10th amendment of the constitution should protect the state from being able to do virtually whatever they want with their elections. But we all know how much Trump hates the constitution, specifically states rights, so there is a good chance he would try to fight against this. The first amendment should protect the political parties from being able to do whatever they want to for their nomination process, so CA Republicans could very well give all their support to Trump even with him doing everything possible to keep his financial records hidden.
Maybe you should read the Constitution. The 10th does not apply here as requirements for POTUS are clear. And as they are clear, the right to set them does not fall to the states. I still say good for him for not releasing them. CA Dems are the ones who hate the Constitution.
Quote: FleaswatterMichael Avenatti is mulling a run for president again after declaring he would not seek nomination
I guess he missed the debates
Quote: AZDuffmanMaybe you should read the Constitution. The 10th does not apply here as requirements for POTUS are clear. And as they are clear, the right to set them does not fall to the states. I still say good for him for not releasing them. CA Dems are the ones who hate the Constitution.
I will do anything you tell me to do, so I'll go ahead and read the constitution. But the proposal in California says absolutely nothing about the requirements for president, so that part of the constitution doesn't apply here. It changes the requirements to be on their ballot. There is nothing in the constitution about what a state does with their ballots. There was a time when most states didn't even have a presidential ballot for their citizens, most states gave full control of their electoral votes to the electorates that were selected by their legislature. It was that representative democracy thing that the founding fathers were so fond of.
Quote: TomGI will do anything you tell me to do, so I'll go ahead and read the constitution. But the proposal in California says absolutely nothing about the requirements for president, so that part of the constitution doesn't apply here. It changes the requirements to be on their ballot. There is nothing in the constitution about what a state does with their ballots. There was a time when most states didn't even have a presidential ballot for their citizens, most states gave full control of their electoral votes to the electorates that were selected by their legislature. It was that representative democracy thing that the founding fathers were so fond of.
Sorry, but it does de facto add a requirement for POTUS. The Constitution does not state what states may do with ballots because it was elegantly written before a time when we think every last possibility must be spelled out. It is written in "Common Law" language, meaning you look at what was written and go by intent. Intent is the requirements set, not to say these are the requirements, but you can add your own.
It is unconstitutional, pure and simple. And it is the kind of thing you get with one-party rule that CA now is.
Looks like it was the LEAST violent weekend of the year in Baltimore.
I wonder when Trump is going to get credit for it?
Obviously the embarrassment to Cummings and crew caused an increased police presence.
Hopefully Trump calls out more cities and saves more Black lives.
