Tweet
………….it's not their money?...…...It sure isn't YOUR money
-
-
Dang! I screwed up my trademark. Earlier today Trump tweeted that it's actually 17 Angry Democrats now.Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Comment
-
If Trump directed specific persons or conspired with persons to commit acts that are against the law, then he should be impeached.
"When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
I appreciate your willingness to engage in the hypothetical, but I'd like to test the limits of your answer. First and foremost, if Trump directed his personal driver to break a speed limit, it's not like you think he should be impeached. So I don't think as a blanket statement, we can say any acts that are against the law. Second, "directed" or "conspired with" leaves out a big chunk of question relating to "knew about and didn't inform anyone." What if he just turned a blind eye to tons of illegal activity?
Lastly, and maybe most importantly, there probably aren't going to be slam dunk arguments that certain things are "against the law." If the president were actually to get criminally charged, there would be so many constitutional arguments relating to presidential powers. I tried to limit my hypotheticals to a few specific examples to see if in those specific scenarios people would support impeachment. -
I would not be for impeachment for turning a blind eye. Too difficult to prove. Put any information which supports the argument to the public and prosecute those who did the act and he can suffer the consequences politically. -
I'm pretty certain that there would be much more than just arguments relating to presidential powers, even taking into account your hypothetical. No?
-
-
To impeach, or not to impeach; makes no difference to me. If Trump goes it only gets worse for the libs as they would then have to deal with Mike Pence for 8 years. And Pence would drive home the moral issues like an m'fer really causing the Libtard Socialist Atheist bungholes to pucker.
So keep going you silly deranged fools. But be careful what you wish for...
T
...:cool:Comment
-
Vast amounts of wealth held by only a few people is a problem in a democracy - especially if they start to meddle in politics a la Charles Koch.
Most of us in here are conservative. Imagine for a moment if Chuckles was a Libtard?
There probably should be some sort of special inheritance tax for the super wealthy (estates of $500 million or greater). This would not affect the lives of their children nor act as a disincentive towards pursuing "The American Dream". It would just tip the scales a little when somebody really hits the jackpot.
I don't think there is a discernible difference in talent and effort between businessman A who amassed 50 million dollars in his lifetime and businessman B who amassed 50 billion. One just happened to choose an industry with an exponentially greater growth potential.
My comments on this issue are personal and have not gone through any political affiliation filter. I have not considered any Pandora's Box that would be opened by enacting legislation specifically designed to tax the super rich for reasons of merely being super rich.
On the other hand, I would NOT be in favor of any taxed proceeds being redistributed as "payments to the poor". Redistribution of wealth for Socialistic purposes creates waste and lowers overall production. Perhaps the Super Wealthy Tax proceeds could go to a foundation or charity whose mission is to discover a cure or support the vets, the disabled, the elderly, etc. Perhaps the wealthy families affected by such a tax could avoid it by voluntarily setting up their own charity. Of course the donating family would have zero executive control over whatever they established. This wouldn't be a Clinton Foundation sort of deal where their family can go to work for the foundation and earn exorbitant salaries. This would merely be an opportunity to have your name on something in lieu of just having your billions taxed.
Don't mind me, today is opposite day for CB!
T
...:cool:Comment
-
I guess I don't understand what the problem is with a very few number of people that don't have to do anything because their parent (or grandparents etc) were super wealthy. How does that automatically a net negative to you, or the country?
I would wager some, if not most, are likely to be folks that work and reinvest in the economy.....are those people ok or must they be made to start from scratch?
To me, it's kind of like the ongoing feud with police by the left.
Are they some bad cops out there? Of course. When you have 800,000 of anything you're going to have a bad apple here and there.
Are bad cops a bigger problem in our country than say, thieves, human traffickers, gang members, rapists and drug dealers?
No. By a factor of , well a lot....the problem of bad cops is statistically insignificant compared to crime as a whole.
Even if a person concedes that a super wealthy person who has never worked or been productive shouldn't be allowed to be in that position (and that goes against everything I personally believe in but for the sake of this argument...…) is not the person that has lived cradle to grave for the most part off the government teat a far far far far bigger issue?
I just don't understand that line of thinking. We aren't talking about more than what 1000 people? Do you really think those 1000 people are somehow holding down the rest of the country?Comment
-
The problem with having super wealthy is 2 fold:Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
1. Relative poverty leads to crime, not absolute poverty. So, even if everyone is actually better off due to the wealthy person’s job creation, society as a whole will likely have more problems.
2. When you’re successful, it’s easier to be successful, which leads to more wealth and more relative poverty.
These as things are true across the world, so it is better for society not to have extreme pockets of wealth.
OTOH, most wealth is lost within one generation, so what you say is true in that it would impact very few situations that wouldn’t otherwise be corrected on their own given a generation to tilt back towards the mean.
Livin the dreamComment
-
I'm having a hard time grasping what you're telling me here. Sorry, it could be advanced age, dementia, or a variety of other ailments. I don't understand that first part at all. Relative poverty leads to crime, not absolute poverty. I am not sure poverty cause crimes in the first place (correlation not causation) but what does that have to do with the super wealthy anyway? Are you saying that not having the super wealthy is somehow a better society? Sorry, I'm only trying to keep up here.Originally posted by wufan View Post
Comment
-
But isn't the President, hypothetically, in cahoots with these guys?Comment
-
Think about the game Monopoly when one guy has bought up all the properties and you're that last dude praying before every roll of the dice. I'm not saying we've reached that level in America, I'm not even saying the super wealthy are standing by waiting to crush the souls of anyone who dares land on their property; but you could say that what Charles Koch is doing is kind of like lining his streets with red hotels. He's spending U.S. dollars as if it's Monopoly money to influence elections and has been very successful.
Hey, I'm on his team, I think like he thinks, but just how the separation of church and state benefits us all, so does a fairly normal wealth curve. Having 71% of Americans (230 million) earning 50k or less while one dude, Jeff Bezos, holds $143.1 billion in his back pocket is kind of weird to put it mildly.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm not advocating income redistribution. I don't even really have a solution. I'm just saying people need to become familiar with terms such as plutocracy and oligarchy moving forward.
We've got Koch spending billions on campaigns at the state level. We've got Bezos buying the Washington Post which has hammered Trump 24/7 for two years straight. Then add in Soros' civil disruption funding. A unified Hollywood political consortium will be next.
T
...:cool:Comment
-
I'm overlooking the issues in C0|dB|00ded 's posts that I disagree with, just so I can see how many posts in a row of his I can even justifiably "like."
Cold, you might be a snowflake after all.Comment
-
There’s a correlation (not causation) in income inequality and crime. The more income inequality, the more crime. Because it is a universally true correlation (across cultures and time), it is worthwhile to hypothesize why this true.Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
The theory for causation is that jealous poor guy believes that indignant rich guy cheated the system to gain his wealth. JPG robs IRG because of the belief that the IRG rigged the system in his favor, or JPG1 robs JPG2 because the system is rigged, so he will cheat like everyone else.
If this his theory is true, then the answer is to redistribute the wealth downward. The problem is that if you redistribute wealth, the wealthy just gain it back, but at a slower rate. The poor are generally worse off overall because there are less jobs to go around and fewer people to pay for the new poor. The only sure ways to create an even wealth distribution are economic collapse, disease, or famine.
An an alternative solution is to demonstrate that the system isn’t rigged. Government isn’t very good at this.
Regardless of the cause or solution, the problem is real.Livin the dreamComment
-
Scenerio 1: noOriginally posted by jdshock View Post
scenerio 2: I didn’t even know this was a hypothesis. If he directed interference, it’s definately impeachment. On the low end, no problem.
Scenerio 3: No. Obama knew what was going on and it wasn’t reported. I don’t know why Trump would be held to a different standard.
Scenerio 4: There’s no evidence that Trump is doing Putin’s bidding from a policy standpoint. If new evidence demonstrates that he was being blackmailed and that he complied, I would change my answer.
Livin the dreamComment
-
Correct me if this is incorrect, but I believe property crime continues to decrease, while I hear that income inequality is ever increasing. I don't know what or how income inequality is measured, just going by what I hear throughout the media and politics.Originally posted by wufan View Post
This would seem to dispute this theory."When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
2. I don't know that it's a hypothesis. Certainly people are pointing out that he publicly asked the Russians to hack Clinton earlier on the same day that they did so.Originally posted by wufan View Post
3. What do you mean it wasn't reported by Obama? Do you believe he had information that came to him and he didn't give it to the CIA or FBI?
4. I think there is mounds and mounds of evidence that Trump's policies are favorable to Russia. From delaying sanctions to weakening NATO alliances to meeting privately with Putin, tons of policies benefit Russia. I do think there's little NON-policy evidence of this scenario. Other than the incredibly weird Helsinki summit that is. But this game is about what you'd support if the evidence showed each scenario. It sounds like you would basically only support impeachment if Trump himself directed Russian hacking or Trump himself was being blackmailed and doing Putin's bidding. I'm certainly not holding my breath for the evidence to show those things.Comment
Comment