# Trump tax returns released, and no one is surprised that he was doing tax avoidence



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...-raise-alarms-about-fairness-of-u-s-tax-code/
"A preliminary review of the thousands of pages of Donald Trump’s tax returns released by a key congressional committee on Friday confirms that the former president was using business losses in the tens of millions of dollars to reduce his annual tax liability, in some cases all the way down to zero."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/30/trump-taxes-foreign-income-00075872
"That year, Trump also brought in $6.5 million from China, $5.8 million from Indonesia and $5.7 million from India.

By 2020, his last full year in office, Trump reported $8.8 million in income from the U.K. and another $3.9 million in Ireland.

It’s not a surprise that Trump continued to receive money from foreign interests while he was president, since he kept ownership of the company."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/30/trump-tax-returns-released-us-house-committee
Also trump had a Chinese bank account while he was president. You only have a bank account open in a different country if you plan to do transactions from that country.

Also hilariously enough, Trump went on to say that democrats obtained it "unconstitutionally" (ironic since it was the supreme court, with 3 of the picks being his, cleared the way for the IRS to obtain it)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/22/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-congress-house
And that it was "illegal"
Sure.


----------



## Viri (Jan 3, 2023)

My parents and everyone I know does something similar. They try to pay as little as possible on their taxes.


----------



## MariArch (Jan 3, 2023)

damn tax avoidance?? he's even more based then I thought previously


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Never donated his presidential salary, was never tough on China.  Pays less in taxes than some homeless people and undocumented immigrants.  Proof positive that you can be a millionaire and still remain white trash.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

MariArch said:


> damn tax avoidance?? he's even more based then I thought previously


ah... let me pull out the aged milk


MariArch said:


> *What crime has he been charged with? And don't cite that stupid New York tax shit lmao.*
> You're pulling stuff out of your ass with accusations of "unique corruption". Lol.


We've gone from "what crime"
to "This crime is based"

Republican party/right wingers:*law and order*
Also Republican party/right wingers: "Who gives a fuck about the law"
the sheer irony


----------



## impeeza (Jan 3, 2023)

Viri said:


> My parents and everyone I know does something similar. They try to pay as little as possible on their taxes.


one thing is use the law for using a CORRECT tax declaration in order to pay the less you must, but other thing is using loopholes and lies to cheat the state and avoid taxes.

By example, if you don't know what the school expenses of your children are deductibles you end paying more taxes than you should.
but if on your declaration you invent a nonexistent child and deduct his expenses THAT'S is a felony, exactly what this "person" do it.


----------



## nubman33 (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...-raise-alarms-about-fairness-of-u-s-tax-code/
> "A preliminary review of the thousands of pages of Donald Trump’s tax returns released by a key congressional committee on Friday confirms that the former president was using business losses in the tens of millions of dollars to reduce his annual tax liability, in some cases all the way down to zero."
> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/30/trump-taxes-foreign-income-00075872
> "That year, Trump also brought in $6.5 million from China, $5.8 million from Indonesia and $5.7 million from India.
> ...


no one cares. all you do is spew out garbage that not a single person gives a shit about.


Xzi said:


> Never donated his presidential salary, was never tough on China.  Pays less in taxes than some homeless people and undocumented immigrants.  Proof positive that you can be a millionaire and still remain white trash.


and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all. Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

nubman33 said:


> and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all. Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.


Because he said he was going to lmao.



nubman33 said:


> no one cares. all you do is spew out garbage that not a single person gives a shit about.


Okay


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

nubman33 said:


> and why should he donate his salary?


Because he promised he would?  Said he was rich enough already and that the presidential salary was basically a pittance.  Of course anyone with more than half a brain knew he was full of shit, but his cultists pretended it was a huge selling point for his entire four years in office.



nubman33 said:


> Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.


The tax burden on the lower and middle classes should be a lot less, but it never will be as long as we have to make up for what isn't being collected from millionaires and billionaires.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Never donated his presidential salary





Nothereed said:


> Because he said he was going to lmao.



https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33682XG

"After Congress released details on Donald Trump's taxes in December 2022, Democratic activists and groups claimed on social media that the report indicated the former US president did not donate his salary as he had promised. This is misleading; while the document includes wages Trump earned while in the White House, independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."


----------



## impeeza (Jan 3, 2023)

At my country if you earn 20 times the minimum wage, you taxes are 0, but if you earn 2 or more times the minimum wage you tax start on 60% of your salary (divided on several taxes) you have to make magic to get "legal" deductibles and try to pay less taxes, or all your salary goes to taxes


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33682XG
> 
> "After Congress released details on Donald Trump's taxes in December 2022, Democratic activists and groups claimed on social media that the report indicated the former US president did not donate his salary as he had promised. This is misleading; while the document includes wages Trump earned while in the White House, independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."


https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...te-presidents-salary-for-last-6-months-2021-7
"he donated the money to federal agencies."
Which is also, not charity as he promised


----------



## impeeza (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33682XG
> 
> "After Congress released details on Donald Trump's taxes in December 2022, Democratic activists and groups claimed on social media that the report indicated the former US president did not donate his salary as he had promised. This is misleading; while the document includes wages Trump earned while in the White House, independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."


he doesn't "give away" hi made several donations, the difference is if he "give away" he can not lucrate from that money, but donating it he receive taxes reductions, and bank interest for the time he have.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2023



Nothereed said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...te-presidents-salary-for-last-6-months-2021-7
> "he donated the money to federal agencies."
> Which is also, not charity as he promised


federal agencies like his own wall?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Which is also, not charity as he promised



I knew he said he would "donate" his salary, or that he would receive no salary. I can't find a direct quote from Trump saying it would be "to charity." If you can, please post it. I did find a number of results _from during his term_ listing the government agencies to which he was donating an equivalent to his salary, so this isn't new, and isn't "news."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1341/take-no-salary/


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33682XG
> 
> "After Congress released details on Donald Trump's taxes in December 2022, Democratic activists and groups claimed on social media that the report indicated the former US president did not donate his salary as he had promised. This is misleading; while the document includes wages Trump earned while in the White House, independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."





Nothereed said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...te-presidents-salary-for-last-6-months-2021-7
> "he donated the money to federal agencies."
> Which is also, not charity as he promised


I suppose it's important we get our facts straight, but it's ultimately a wash if he donates some 1.2 million and then dodges 10+ million in taxes anyway.  It's why he fought so hard to keep this secret.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> I suppose it's important we get our facts straight, but it's ultimately a wash if he donates some 1.2 million and then dodges 10+ million in taxes anyway.  It's why he fought so hard to keep this secret.



Dodged 10+ million in taxes ... is that a fact you got straight? If his filings were done legally, then it was legal. The guy makes no secret of his practice of paying as little in taxes as possible. If it was done illegally, you'd think something would be done about it. But the coverage of these tax returns is mostly opinion from what I've seen. Like yours.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> I knew he said he would "donate" his salary, or that he would receive no salary.


He has to accept a salary by the constitution, as no person in office is allowed to work without compensation apparently.
Secondly, after he learned that he couldn't avoid taking a salary, he said he would donate it to charity.


----------



## Viri (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."


If I made such a promise, and had to choose a federal agency, I'd choose NASA. Too bad a few million will do fuck all for space exploration.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> Dodged 10+ million in taxes ... is that a fact you got straight? If his filings were done legally, then it was legal.


Contrary to his constant stream of word diarrhea, Trump hasn't been audited any time in the last decade or so.  He was supposed to be audited his first year in office, just as Obama and Biden were, but it never happened.  Guess all the right palms got greased.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Contrary to his constant stream of word diarrhea, Trump hasn't been audited any time in the last decade or so.  He was supposed to be audited his first year in office, just as Obama and Biden were, but it never happened.  Guess all the right palms got greased.



Audit him now.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2023



Nothereed said:


> He has to accept a salary by the constitution, as no person in office is allowed to work without compensation apparently.
> Secondly, after he learned that he couldn't avoid taking a salary, he said he would donate it to charity.



Source.


----------



## Viri (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Contrary to his constant stream of word diarrhea, Trump hasn't been audited any time in the last decade or so.  He was supposed to be audited his first year in office, just as Obama and Biden were, but it never happened.  Guess all the right palms got greased.


Didn't the Democrats control the House and Senate just last year? Why didn't they Audit him then?


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jan 3, 2023)

Isn't much of a surprise even if he is the biggest crime boss


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> Source.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39264663
"The president's salary has been fixed at $400,000 a year since 2001. Mr Trump had previously said he would take only $1 a year, because the president is required by law to receive a salary."

"US President Donald Trump will donate his $400,000 (£329,620) salary to charity at the end of 2017, his spokesman has confirmed."


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

So in other words, Trump's accountants used the tax law in his favor, legally. This is the big reveal after 6 years. No law broken. Just that our tax laws, which were passed by the uniparty for decades, favor the rich. Did you not already know this? Does this surprise you? He came out when he first started running and said this is what he was doing. Even Dave Chappelle made a joke about it. And the fake news media gleefully programmed you to think that Trump would be going to jail for tax evasion.

Between this and the House subpoena being dropped, what exactly has the uniparty accomplished so far? How many failures does this make now? 

Are the walls closing in around Trump or is this the beginning of the end?


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Viri said:


> Didn't the Democrats control the House and Senate just last year? Why didn't they Audit him then?


Trump blocked it as much as possible, he stalled in the courts as long as he could.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> Audit him now.


I don't work for the IRS or I would.  Biden's probably too afraid that it would appear politically motivated.  Regardless, everybody should be interested in finding out more about his Chinese bank account, especially if he's going to be the Republican candidate again.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> I don't work for the IRS or I would.  Biden's probably too afraid that it would appear politically motivated.  Regardless, everybody should be interested in finding out more about his Chinese bank account, especially if he's going to be the Republican candidate again.



He has hotels (at least) in China. This is surprising?

If there's anything there, surely with his tax records now open to the public surely there's no more thorough audit to be had.

Now let's publish the tax records of all those in Congress who voted to publish his.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2023



Nothereed said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39264663
> "The president's salary has been fixed at $400,000 a year since 2001. Mr Trump had previously said he would take only $1 a year, because the president is required by law to receive a salary."
> 
> "US President Donald Trump will donate his $400,000 (£329,620) salary to charity at the end of 2017, his spokesman has confirmed."



His spokesman. I said a direct quote from Trump himself. What did _he_ say about it?

I gotta go to bed now, sorry. Gotta go to work tomorrow so I can pay taxes.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33682XG
> 
> "After Congress released details on Donald Trump's taxes in December 2022, Democratic activists and groups claimed on social media that the report indicated the former US president did not donate his salary as he had promised. This is misleading; while the document includes wages Trump earned while in the White House, independent tax experts say it shows he gave that money away, and public records indicate he made contributions to federal agencies."


So now the argument is being changed from "Trump committed tax evasion" over the past 6 years to "Trump didn't really give his salary to charity".

The left are losing their minds in their desperation to get Trump. I'm really gonna enjoy watching the left fail at everything in 2023.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> He has hotels (at least) in China. This is surprising?


China bad this, china bad that. China, china, china, china. Meruica jobs only, no foreign jobs, money should stay within the states. Tough on china.
Additionally, he should of gave the business away while being president (temporarily until he became private citizen, not permanently). Your not allowed to have foreign financial interests as president, conflict of interest+security issue. (aka, have a direct business, like the CEO, or owner of the company)


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Trump blocked it as much as possible, he stalled in the courts as long as he could.


And now precedent has been set. I can think of 437 people and their families and businesses whose taxes need to be made public now.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> He has hotels (at least) in China. This is surprising?


He has hotels in a lot of countries without having paired bank accounts with them.  Definitely surprising after trying to push a "tough on China" image for so long.



Hanafuda said:


> Now let's publish the tax records of all those in Congress who voted to publish his.


Better yet: make it law that anyone running for federal office be required to disclose at least five years of tax returns.  Most of the candidates with nothing to hide already do it willingly, which means most Republicans do not.


----------



## Viri (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> tough on China


That part saddens me. The US gov is still too weak on China.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

Viri said:


> That part saddens me. The US gov is still too weak on China.


Things are largely in a holding pattern right now, and IMO that's because Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a canary in the coal mine for China's invasion of Taiwan.  The former went very poorly, so China is reconsidering.  Good thing too, because the US is definitely willing to go to war over the world's biggest microchip manufacturer.

Other than that, tensions are still high, TikTok might get banned...etc.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jan 3, 2023)

nubman33 said:


> no one cares. all you do is spew out garbage that not a single person gives a shit about.
> 
> and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all. Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.


a dude with a bobby hill pfp attempting to respond to a well-cited post with "lmao who cares"
i'm shocked, shocked, you hear?

and to boot he doesn't know how countries work
do you contend we should live in an anarchist society without a government? because i don't see another option if you aren't in favor of the government funding itself from its people


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> His spokesman. I said a direct quote from Trump himself. What did _he_ say about it?


This is a really pedantic argument. This is Trump's spokesman in the white house, aka Trump told him to say that.

When presidents pretty often ask other people to talk for them, it's really silly to say "well Biden/Obama/Trump didn't say this, his spokesman did. I want to know what the president said" when said thing, was because whatever president asked them to say it.

Let's make the facts clear.

Trump said he wanted to not take any salary, that was the promise in 2015-2016, his word. When he became president, he learned he couldn't do that, and changed plans to making it into charities with asking media outlets on the location in 2017.

 (we learn that charities part from Sean Spicer, white-house press Secretary and communications director. You pretty much say what the president wants you to, it's literately the PR department.)

The clear intention was to show that he was noble, and did say he'd donate all 4 years (it's implied by the fact he intended to not take a salary at all period). 2017 the trail goes cold, I'm not finding much about it, it's buried among current stories and older shit. If I looked for another 3 hours (hyperbole) I'd probably find more.

 However in 2018 and 2019, we know  he started donating to federal agencies, which you can get some form of reimbursement. Which is already a bit of a broken promise at that point. In 2020, the last 6 months, which was right about when elections cranked to 11. We don't know where or if he even donated it, and it looks like he didn't.

At the end of the day he broke the charity promise.


----------



## jurai (Jan 3, 2023)

nubman33 said:


> no one cares. all you do is spew out garbage that not a single person gives a shit about.
> 
> and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all. Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.



Because he said he was going to donate it you dumb fuck?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Never donated his presidential salary, was never tough on China.  Pays less in taxes than some homeless people and undocumented immigrants.  Proof positive that you can be a millionaire and still remain white trash.



not only is none of this true, it can all be tracked.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2023



lolcatzuru said:


> not only is none of this true, it can all be tracked.



also  did this get him? or will we add this to the list of things that were suppose to get him him and didnt?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2023)

lolcatzuru said:


> not only is none of this true, it can all be tracked.


You're not allowed to be shocked that the guy who sold $100 digital trading cards is a lying grifter.  I know your ego is all wrapped up in Trumpism, but it's better to rip that band-aid off now.  Politicians and celebrities are not meant to be worshiped, let alone politicians that are too inept to govern and D-list reality TV celebrities.


----------



## Dinomite (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> still remain white trash.


No need to be racist


----------



## urherenow (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Trump blocked it as much as possible, he stalled in the courts as long as he could.


The courts have nothing to do with it. The IRS, is supposed to audit the POTUS. Period. Every year, in fact. He just never wanted to make it PUBLIC, and there is no law stating that he has to. Not his fault the IRS didn't do its job.
And He never said charity. He said a government program (which is exactly what he did), and he only said that after he learned that he could not refuse his salary. So far, the only thing you have proven is that you don't know a damn thing about any of this. You just deperately want to see him burn and for all the bullshit the left says to be true.

Have fun with that. Been out of office for nearly 3 years, and the Orange man still keeps you up at night. And... you still believe he did his own taxes. Thousands of pages worth, every year. Lol.


----------



## Tsukiru (Jan 3, 2023)

urherenow said:


> Been out of office for nearly 3 years, and the Orange man still keeps you up at night.


This might come as a shock but talking about a major and influential figure in a political party, regardless of whether or not they're currently in office and especially when new information drops, is completely normal. Find a new routine because "orange man bad" wasn't already a good joke but especially when, in fact, orange man is bad. Have higher standards for "keeps you up at night" besides talking about a recent news story. Not that defaulting to "all the bullshit the left says to be true" is a sign of high standards.



nubman33 said:


> and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all.


There's a major difference in significance between a layman getting by donating their salary and considering survival compared to a proclaimed businessman and notable figure of the country donating their salary. I don't know Nothereed's situation but it doesn't matter, "what about you" is a shitty retort. Trump is being talked about, not them. It's not their or anyone's job to make up for him, so don't put the spotlight on them. Actually focus on the person being talked about.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

urherenow said:


> The courts have nothing to do with it.


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...e-effort-to-obtain-trump-tax-returns-00070530
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a House committee to obtain several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, *a significant win for lawmakers that brought to an end a three-year court battle*."
The courts have everything to do with this since Trump used them as a shield, he tried to delay as much as possible.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...e-effort-to-obtain-trump-tax-returns-00070530
> "The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a House committee to obtain several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, *a significant win for lawmakers that brought to an end a three-year court battle*."
> The courts have everything to do with this since Trump used them as a shield, he tried to delay as much as possible.


The courts are there to protect our rights as Americans. Because of this useless witch hunt that has accomplished nothing, nobody has a right to keep their taxes private. And now we are one step closer to all out fascism. Thanks lefties.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> The courts are there to protect our rights as Americans. Because of this useless witch hunt that has accomplished nothing, nobody has a right to keep their taxes private. And now we are one step closer to all out fascism. Thanks lefties.


Former president (which at the time was sitting president) > Private Citizen
one of these things is not like the other.
Jesus Christ the kool-aid strawmans.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Former president (which at the time was sitting president) > Private Citizen
> one of these things is not like the other.
> Jesus Christ the kool-aid strawmans.


Presidents are American citizens too. I'm just happy that precedence has been set. I look forward to seeing you cry when the House starts requesting the taxes for anybody they want. It'll be nice to see how all these politicians and their families became multimillionaires while in office.

I'll ask again, is this the beginning of the end for dRumpf or are the walls closing in this time? Showing that his accountants used the tax code to his benefit is not the breaking news you think it is, but you've always been quite desperate when it concerns the orange man.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> Presidents are American citizens too.


Read my damn lips, I don't phrase them like I do for fun.


Nothereed said:


> Former president (which at the time was sitting president) >* Private Citizen*


A private citizen (in law) is someone who is not acting as a government official. Government officials are held to different (usually higher) standards than a private citizen in courts. The taxes requested was while Trump was a government official and a year before. Additionally the reason we got these returns was because of the fraud he committed on several of the businesses he owned, in which the supreme court viewed his case, and said "yeah you can have them"


One of these things isn't the same. Do you own several businesses. several cases of fraud, and the IRS auditing you during that same time, and being a President of the United States, which historically releases their taxes publicly and you didn't release them? No? Okay then.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here I'll make it extra fun, I want you to cite the exact part from the supreme court ruling and several cases Trump fought to prevent his taxes from being released, and cite how that would suddenly make everyone's taxes public. Surely if it sets a precedent, you can cite it verbatim.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also there's plenty of European countries that have their taxes public, and they're pretty democratic, so I'm not sure how people's taxes becoming public magically creates fascism.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Read my damn lips, I don't phrase them like I do for fun.
> 
> A private citizen (in law) is someone who is not acting as a government official. Government officials are held to different (usually higher) standards than a private citizen in courts. The taxes requested was while Trump was a government official and a year before.


A year before makes him a private citizen. Please state the law that says that government officials are required to hand over their taxes. 


Nothereed said:


> Additionally the reason we got these returns was because of the fraud he committed on several of the businesses he owned, in which the supreme court viewed his case, and said "yeah you can have them"


Now point to the fraud.


Nothereed said:


> One of these things isn't the same. Do you own several businesses. several cases of fraud, and the IRS auditing you during that same time, and being a President of the United States, which historically releases their taxes publicly and you didn't release them? No? Okay then.


Nobody was ever required to release their taxes by law or court order. Now that precedent has been set, the fun can start. The IRS found no wrongdoing during any of their audits.


Nothereed said:


> Here I'll make it extra fun, I want you to cite the exact part from the supreme court ruling and several cases Trump fought to prevent his taxes from being released, and cite how that would suddenly make everyone's taxes public. Surely if it sets a precedent, you can cite it verbatim.


Do Supreme Court decisions not set precedence anymore? The entire left was saying how important precedence was during the Roe strikedown decision last year. Now, you are saying precedence is not important. Which is it, because you can't have it both ways.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 3, 2023)

ZeroT21 said:


> Isn't much of a surprise even if he is the biggest crime boss


the real life William Fisk I guess


----------



## urherenow (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...e-effort-to-obtain-trump-tax-returns-00070530
> "The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for a House committee to obtain several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns from the IRS, *a significant win for lawmakers that brought to an end a three-year court battle*."
> The courts have everything to do with this since Trump used them as a shield, he tried to delay as much as possible.


You don’t understand. The courts made the IRS give congress access or to make the returns public.. They didn’t *just now* make a ruling that he should be audited. The IRS has been REQUIRED to audit the POTUS for decades. They apparently did not do their job. That’s the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 3, 2023)

urherenow said:


> You don’t understand. The courts made the IRS give congress access or to make the returns public.. They didn’t *just now* make a ruling that he should be audited. The IRS has been REQUIRED to audit the POTUS for decades. They apparently did not do their job. That’s the point I was trying to make.


_sigh_
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/us/supreme-court-trump-taxes-house-democrats.html

first off this all started from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means. Which if you don't know, handles tariffs, and surprise, taxes. They requested trumps taxes, in which they were trying to do oversight, but couldn't due to Trump throwing the courts trying to stall for time. He requested those files in *2019*

Throwing court after court, litigation, appeals, stalling for as much time as possible. It's not that they just  didn't do their job. It's that Trump got what he wanted, he stalled for as much time as possible, that was the objective.

Yes, the courts have everything to do with this, because that's the mechanism trump got to stall through.

As for the IRS not doing it's job, it didn't, you're correct, it shouldn't take a request from a committee for them to take a look.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2023

Considering how Trump was trying to strong arm the department of justice before jan6th, and strong armed other departments, it could be implied he hired yes men around the IRS or departments the IRS would contact, since usually the IRS isn't asleep at the wheel with sitting presidents.


----------



## urherenow (Jan 3, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> _sigh_
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/us/supreme-court-trump-taxes-house-democrats.html
> 
> first off this all started from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means. Which if you don't know, handles tariffs, and surprise, taxes. They requested trumps taxes, in which they were trying to do oversight, but couldn't due to Trump throwing the courts trying to stall for time. He requested those files in *2019*
> ...


Dude… how old are you? I said the IRS was required to do the audit, and you bring up congress again. The IRS had his tax papers. Every year. THEY had a requirement to do the audit. Until now, there is/was no law requiring him to give it to congress, or he wouldn’t have been able to stall in the first place. The IRS could have simply sent them over.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

urherenow said:


> Dude… how old are you? I said the IRS was required to do the audit, and you bring up congress again. The IRS had his tax papers. Every year. THEY had a requirement to do the audit. Until now, there is/was no law requiring him to give it to congress, or he wouldn’t have been able to stall in the first place. The IRS could have simply sent them over.


The IRS couldn't just send them over. It is against the law to publicize somebody's tax records, even to Congress unless they have a warrant, which they are not able to get because they do not have the authority.

Trump dragged them through the courts for a reason. One, to humiliate them for when they got their hands on it them and there's nothing there, which is why they waited so long to release them and two, to set precedence for the incoming House.

I look forward to seeing the taxes of 437 people, their families and businesses.


----------



## urherenow (Jan 3, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> The IRS couldn't just send them over. It is against the law to publicize somebody's tax records, even to Congress unless they have a warrant,


Bingo. Unless a law was passed requiring congress to review them (Then a warrant would not be needed). That clearly was/is not the case. And a good number of people in these forums are yet again, salivating over the situation. They think it’s another “gotcha” moment for Trump just like both impeachments,  while back in reality, there isn’t a criminal case to be made of it.

INB4 people start chiming in with the New York stuff, which was against one of his many companies, and not the man….


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 3, 2023)

urherenow said:


> Bingo. Unless a law was passed requiring congress to review them (Then a warrant would not be needed). That clearly was/is not the case. And a good number of people in these forums are yet again, salivating over the situation. They think it’s another “gotcha” moment for Trump just like both impeachments,  while back in reality, there isn’t a criminal case to be made of it.
> 
> INB4 people star chiming in with the New York stuff, which was against one of his many companie, and not the man….


bUt ThEy GoT dRuMpF tHiS tImE...

Just you wait. A story was even written, so it must be true.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/2023-will-finally-be-the-year-of-accountability-for-donald-trump


----------



## lokomelo (Jan 3, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Things are largely in a holding pattern right now, and IMO that's because Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a canary in the coal mine for China's invasion of Taiwan.  The former went very poorly, so China is reconsidering.  Good thing too, because the US is definitely willing to go to war over the world's biggest microchip manufacturer.
> 
> Other than that, tensions are still high, TikTok might get banned...etc.


for whatever reason, I do see US imperialistic efforts to start a World War that it would probably lose.

But what China has to do with Trump being corrupt? I bet he can't even pinpoint China on the map, but can skip taxes like a champ.


----------



## Valwinz (Jan 3, 2023)

So all this hype for nothing wow


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2023)

The tax avoidance spiel is always mind-numbing to me. The entire point of “paying taxes” is to calculate and pay the exact amount owed. If someone qualifies for a deduction, or is entitled to offset losses from previous years against the gains in the current tax year, they absolutely should. You should *always* pay the *minimum amount*, if you pay more than that, or fail to take advantage of those opportunities, you are *overpaying*. It is no different than paying double for a burger and not collecting your change - you’re entitled to that change, it’s your money.

The reason why nobody’s surprised that Trump offsets his losses against his gains is because he’s never made a secret of it. He *bragged* about it on national TV, from the debate stage. Everybody knew about this, it’s been public knowledge since before he was president.

As far as him donating his salary is concerned, this was adequately addressed by others in the thread, so there’s no point reiterating it. His salary would’ve still counted as income on the filings, and his donations were public at the time he was making them. They were always publicised, along with the amounts he donated.

Giant waste of time for everyone involved, and yet another investigation in search of a crime.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 4, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why nobody’s surprised that Trump offsets his losses against his gains is because he’s never made a secret of it. He *bragged* about it on national TV, from the debate stage. Everybody knew about this, it’s been public knowledge since before he was president.


I (partially) have to agree with this: the USA citizens knew who they were voting for. They refused to believe it, minimize the precedent or...well...basically what his fanboys are bringing up as arguments, really. I can't really blame them, as I don't think anyone actually DENIED it.

Well...except Donald himself, who occasionally blurted out things like he paid the MOST taxes somehow. Which contradicts his own statement in the Clinton debate (prior to 2016) that not paying taxes makes him smart. 



Foxi4 said:


> Giant waste of time for everyone involved, and yet another investigation in search of a crime.


Hmm...I was so close to completely agreeing with you, and then you wrote this. 


It's an overhyped media circus, I'll give you that. The guy should be in jail for a whole lot of other things, most prominently the attack on January 6th. This is like paying interest to how much taxes Bin Laden actually owed his country...
_...but that doesn't mean he didn't commit crimes_. Serious or not is a matter of perspective, but "in search of a crime" and "Giant waste of time" are just petty remarks, considering he's already been ordered to pay fines for tax violations.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2023)

Taleweaver said:


> I (partially) have to agree with this: the USA citizens knew who they were voting for. They refused to believe it, minimize the precedent or...well...basically what his fanboys are bringing up as arguments, really. I can't really blame them, as I don't think anyone actually DENIED it.
> 
> Well...except Donald himself, who occasionally blurted out things like he paid the MOST taxes somehow. Which contradicts his own statement in the Clinton debate (prior to 2016) that not paying taxes makes him smart.
> 
> ...


I don’t need you to agree with me. The entire point of combing through his returns was to find a hook, that’s the definition of an investigation in search of a crime. I have no comment on your other allegations because they’re contrary to how the rule of law works. “Just because we didn’t find anything doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a crime” is a ridiculous standard - either you have a credible suspicion backed up by evidence or you don’t. You’re pre-emptively assuming that he’s guilty of *something* and finding out what is just a matter of how deep you’re willing to dig and what rules you’re willing to bend - that’s not how this is supposed to work.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 4, 2023)

Taleweaver said:


> It's an overhyped media circus, I'll give you that. The guy should be in jail for a whole lot of other things, most prominently the attack on January 6th. This is like paying interest to how much taxes Bin Laden actually owed his country...
> _...but that doesn't mean he didn't commit crimes_. Serious or not is a matter of perspective, but "in search of a crime" and "Giant waste of time" are just petty remarks, considering he's already been ordered to pay fines for tax violations.


We are about to learn a lot about January 6th in the coming months. There's already proof that Ray Epps instigated people going into the building, yet he walks free. In fact, the J6 committee hid his testimony until they couldn't hide it any longer. We also know now that Pelosi intentionally denied National Guard presence and reduced the number of Capitol Police officers on duty that day while she had a film crew. Makes you wonder why the pipe bomber has not been named and arrested.

And to top it off, Adam Schiff was spending his time getting people banned from social media, infringing on American's 1st Amendment right.

Going after Trump is nothing but a distraction from the Democrats and RINO's (uniparty) crimes.


----------



## crueI (Jan 5, 2023)

Remember the last 6 years, the media was telling you that there was proof of Trump's Russia ties in his tax returns? They pushed this narrative at the instruction of the FBI.



Now his tax returns have been released, and they are all silent. His net worth decreased during his presidency. No Russian ties. No wrongdoing. Everything above the board. "But he used loopholes to avoid paying certain taxes," is an absurd rebuttal. Everyone who has their taxes done by a tax services/tax attorneys does so to use loopholes in order to avoid paying taxes they otherwise should.

Make no mistake.
We've been in the middle of a 5th Generation warfare operation since 2019.
The largest in human history.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> The tax avoidance spiel is always mind-numbing to me. The entire point of “paying taxes” is to calculate and pay the exact amount owed. If someone qualifies for a deduction, or is entitled to offset losses from previous years against the gains in the current tax year, they absolutely should. You should *always* pay the *minimum amount*, if you pay more than that, or fail to take advantage of those opportunities, you are *overpaying*. It is no different than paying double for a burger and not collecting your change - you’re entitled to that change, it’s your money.


A supposed billionaire paying less in taxes than McDonald's employees is not how the system is meant to work, and it's a big red flag that his tax lawyers are manipulating the numbers in his favor.  The only reason these weren't audited the second they were submitted is because Republicans have been depriving the IRS of the resources it needs to go after whales for decades.  Just another roundabout way of attacking and putting a greater burden on the working class.

Ultimately Trump never would've been elected at all had these been made public prior to or during the debates, which proves the need to make disclosure required by law.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> A supposed billionaire paying less in taxes than McDonald's employees is not how the system is meant to work, and it's a big red flag that his tax lawyers are manipulating the numbers in his favor.  The only reason these weren't audited the second they were submitted is because Republicans have been depriving the IRS of the resources it needs to go after whales for decades.  Just another roundabout way of attacking and putting a greater burden on the working class.


Republicans? Loving tax fraud and corruption? Unthinkable! This never happens!


----------



## Viri (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Other than that, tensions are still high, TikTok might get banned...etc.


The US dropped the ball on that one. When Trump tried to ban in back in 2020, it should have honestly been bi-partisan. India already banned it for good reason. I remember Microsoft simping for TikTok back then.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jan 5, 2023)

Viri said:


> The US dropped the ball on that one. When Trump tried to ban in back in 2020, it should have honestly been bi-partisan. India already banned it for good reason. I remember Microsoft simping for TikTok back then.


I dunno, I think it's not the government's job to police what media platforms can and can't be in a country. Like, I get the only reason you care about it is because you're an authoritarian who wants the government to run shit when it's your government and all, but some of us actually have moral values and the like. Banning TikTok is a bandaid issue to fix social problems. People have done moronic shit since the beginning of time for validation and attention.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> A supposed billionaire paying less in taxes than McDonald's employees is not how the system is meant to work, and it's a big red flag that his tax lawyers are manipulating the numbers in his favor.  The only reason these weren't audited the second they were submitted is because Republicans have been depriving the IRS of the resources it needs to go after whales for decades.  Just another roundabout way of attacking and putting a greater burden on the working class.
> 
> Ultimately Trump never would've been elected at all had these been made public prior to or during the debates, which proves the need to make disclosure required by law.


Actually, that is how the system works because of laws passed by the uniparty to protect their billionaire donors. If anything illegal was done, charges would be filed, but we don't see that.  Trump's accountants followed the law and instead of being mad at the uniparty for passing those laws, you are mad at an individual who hires people to take advantage of those laws.

I notice that the Dems didn't even try to repeal any of the tax cuts for the rich over the past 2 years, but have no problems letting tax cuts for the poor and middle class expire and actually raise our energy taxes.

Cope and seethe harder.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually, that is how the system works because of laws passed by the uniparty to protect their billionaire donors. If anything illegal was done, charges would be filed, but we don't see that. Trump's accountants followed the law and instead of being mad at the uniparty for passing those laws, you are mad at an individual who hires people to take advantage of those laws.


You mean the laws that were passed at the behest of all the lobbyists sent to DC by billionaires?  Yeah, they're still deserving of the vast majority of the blame, your own bootlicking notwithstanding.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> You mean the laws that were passed at the behest of all the lobbyists sent to DC by billionaires?  Yeah, they're still deserving of the vast majority of the blame, your own bootlicking notwithstanding.


I think we just agreed on something?

Did you see my thread where I stated that I think lobbying should be illegal?

Not sure why you would insult me after agreeing with me. Might be because you are unhinged? Who knows?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> I think we just agreed on something?


Not at all, as you're trying to deflect all blame away from the people and corporations who hire lobbyists in the first place.  They're a symptom of a much larger disease.  A better starting point would be repealing Citizens United, which conflates money in politics with speech.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Not at all, as you're trying to deflect all blame away from the people and corporations who hire lobbyists in the first place.  They're a symptom of a much larger disease.  A better starting point would be repealing Citizens United, which conflates money in politics with speech.


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because we are in complete agreement here and you are still trying to disagree with me. Just accept that you have found common ground with an accused racist, sexist, transphobe, fascist nazi and call it a day.

Welcome to the dark side, buddy-friend.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because we are in complete agreement here and you are still trying to disagree with me. Just accept that you have found common ground with an accused racist, sexist, transphobe, fascist nazi and call it a day.
> 
> Welcome to the dark side, buddy-friend.


Either you're full of shit or you've done a complete 180 in the last couple days, because I'm more or less saying that capitalism is the root of the problem here.  Billionaires just plain should not exist, let alone have the kind of influence that they do over government.

Trump, Musk, Buffett, and all the rest are leeches, a massive drain on society.  If you can agree with that, then sure, we're on the same page.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Either you're full of shit or you've done a complete 180 in the last couple days, because I'm more or less saying that capitalism is the root of the problem here.  Billionaires just plain should not exist, let alone have the kind of influence that they do over government.
> 
> Trump, Musk, Buffett, and all the rest are leeches, a massive drain on society.  If you can agree with that, then sure, we're on the same page.


You are changing the argument now. We were talking about how the tax code, passed by the uniparty over the decades is full of loopholes. Then we migrated over to the evils of lobbyists and the need to reverse the Citizens United decision. We are in full agreement on all of those topics. Why do you want to ruin a good time?

Let's take the win and go have a beer.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> You are changing the argument now. We were talking about how the tax code, passed by the uniparty over the decades is full of loopholes. Then we migrated over to the evils of lobbyists and the need to reverse the Citizens United decision. We are in full agreement on all of those topics. Why do you want to ruin a good time?
> 
> Let's take the win and go have a beer.


The tax code is a loophole-filled mess because billionaires and corporations want it to be, simple as that.  Rolling it back to a time before they lobbied to have it rigged in their favor would also mean going back to a time before billionaires, when the top tax bracket was 70% to 90%.  It's not a coincidence that those were also the decades when America's middle class thrived the most.


----------



## mrmagicm (Jan 5, 2023)

From a foreigner vision like me :
Wow, is trying to get minimum tax= Tax avoidance illegal is Usa?
For a man hated by at least 40% of the country, I would say it's very risky if he did that! Specially, he was already rich before, did he become president for that? I think no, he did it for Fame.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> The tax code is a loophole-filled mess because billionaires and corporations want it to be, simple as that.  Rolling it back to a time before they lobbied to have it rigged in their favor would also mean going back to a time before billionaires, when the top tax bracket was 70% to 90%.  It's not a coincidence that those were also the decades when America's middle class thrived the most.


Who are these billionaires and corporations lobbying? They have to lobby somebody. Who passes laws here? What governing body has been passing loopholes, then campaign to close those loopholes, and then do nothing about said loopholes?

Don't ruin this bro-ment we are having. Just sit back, relax and accept that you agree with me.

	Post automatically merged: Jan 5, 2023



mrmagicm said:


> From a foreigner vision like me :
> Wow, is trying to get minimum tax= Tax avoidance illegal is Usa?
> For a man hated by at least 40% of the country, I would say it's very risky if he did that! Specially, he was already rich before, did he become president for that? I think no, he did it for Fame.


Trump was already famous before becoming president. He was well liked by 80%+ of the country. Rappers made songs about him. He had a very successful TV show. He was in movies. You might want to rethink your premise.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 5, 2023)

Xzi said:


> A supposed billionaire paying less in taxes than McDonald's employees is not how the system is meant to work (…)


That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 6, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.


Clearly I'm not, it's a massive component of America's decline over the last few decades.  For that matter, two-tiered societies were the very first to fail in human history.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Clearly I'm not, it's a massive component of America's decline over the last few decades.  For that matter, two-tiered societies were the very first to fail in human history.


You ain't wrong. Every part of our society is two-tiered. Especially justice. Bankman-Fried stole billions of dollars and he's on house arrest. If we go rob a convenience store of a few hundred dollars, we'd be locked up until trial.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Clearly I'm not, it's a massive component of America's decline over the last few decades.  For that matter, two-tiered societies were the very first to fail in human history.


It’s working as intended, by which I mean that those exceptions, deductions and offsets are intentional and legal. It’s the government’s way of encouraging otherwise risky investments - if you trip along the way, it’s not that you’re “not paying taxes”, you are offsetting your loss against what you would’ve paid otherwise. It’s also never going to go away because the major political parties are primarily financed by the same people who are using those regulations to their advantage. Tough break, I suppose. If I had a multi-million investment that went sideways, I’d be doing the exact same thing.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 6, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s working as intended, by which I mean that those exceptions, deductions and offsets are intentional and legal.


It's not legal to turn a profit and then claim nonexistent losses, which is how the vast majority of wealthy individuals and corporations operate in the modern day.  They're never worried about the legality of it to begin with, however, as they know they'll never be audited.

Even pretending for a moment that the losses claimed are legitimate, the whole thing reeks of failing one's way to the top, which is not indicative of a healthy economic model.  Completely unsurprising then that we're subjected to a massive crash at least once a decade now, as billionaires are the proverbial bulls in a china shop.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> It's not legal to turn a profit and then claim nonexistent losses, which is how the vast majority of wealthy individuals and corporations operate in the modern day.  They're never worried about the legality of it to begin with, however, as they know they'll never be audited.
> 
> Even pretending for a moment that the losses claimed are legitimate, the whole thing reeks of failing one's way to the top, which is not indicative of a healthy economic model.  Completely unsurprising then that we're subjected to a massive crash at least once a decade now, as billionaires are the proverbial bulls in a china shop.


You’re welcome to think that - realistically the two things have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> It's not legal to turn a profit and then claim nonexistent losses, which is how the vast majority of wealthy individuals and corporations operate in the modern day.  They're never worried about the legality of it to begin with, however, as they know they'll never be audited.


If you believe the IRS is failing to prosecute people for tax evasion, what is the purpose of the 87,000 additional agents?


Xzi said:


> Even pretending for a moment that the losses claimed are legitimate, the whole thing reeks of failing one's way to the top, which is not indicative of a healthy economic model.  Completely unsurprising then that we're subjected to a massive crash at least once a decade now, as billionaires are the proverbial bulls in a china shop.


Since I day trade, I can speak on this from first hand experience. All of my winning trades add to my yearly income. All of my losing trades subtract from my income. What it seems that you want is for people to only be able to claim their profits and to ignore their losses completely. So my first year of day trading, I had more losses than winners. Say I lost $10,000. Let's say my salary at that time was $90,000. My tax preparer subtracted my losses from my salary, along with other deductions like the child tax credit, interest on my student loans, head of household, and my total income was less than $80,000. Is there something wrong with doing this? Did I break the law? Of course I didn't.

I also don't agree with using the tax code as a weapon, but from what I'm seeing from certain corporations today, I'm coming around to it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> You're not allowed to be shocked that the guy who sold $100 digital trading cards is a lying grifter.  I know your ego is all wrapped up in Trumpism, but it's better to rip that band-aid off now.  Politicians and celebrities are not meant to be worshiped, let alone politicians that are too inept to govern and D-list reality TV celebrities.



you keeping using that word but i dont think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 6, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re welcome to think that - realistically the two things have nothing to do with each other.


Nonsense.  They keep wages stagnant as they cause runaway inflation by hoarding wealth in offshore bank accounts, and simultaneously jack up prices for no reason other than profiteering.  Then tax season comes along and they give none of it back, ensuring we never have the funds to improve infrastructure, healthcare, education, or anything else connected to the average person's quality of life.  Rob us blind both coming and going.



TraderPatTX said:


> If you believe the IRS is failing to prosecute people for tax evasion, what is the purpose of the 87,000 additional agents?


I should be a little more patient where that's concerned, as it will take time for those additional hires and resources to have a notable effect on the agency's ability to go after the big fish.  It's just sickening that they've been getting away with it for four plus decades already, so I'm a bit pessimistic about how much improvement we're really gonna see.



TraderPatTX said:


> Since I day trade, I can speak on this from first hand experience. All of my winning trades add to my yearly income. All of my losing trades subtract from my income. What it seems that you want is for people to only be able to claim their profits and to ignore their losses completely. So my first year of day trading, I had more losses than winners. Say I lost $10,000. Let's say my salary at that time was $90,000. My tax preparer subtracted my losses from my salary, along with other deductions like the child tax credit, interest on my student loans, head of household, and my total income was less than $80,000. Is there something wrong with doing this? Did I break the law? Of course I didn't.


It comes back to the two-tiered system I mentioned before.  The poorer you are, the more stingy they'll be about allowing you to claim write-offs and losses, and it's all the more likely you'll be audited.  Even in the tens of thousands you're gonna be under a lot more scrutiny than a billionaire claiming losses in the tens of millions.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 6, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Nonsense.  They keep wages stagnant as they cause runaway inflation by hoarding wealth in offshore bank accounts, and simultaneously jack up prices for no reason other than profiteering.  Then tax season comes along and they give none of it back, ensuring we never have the funds to improve infrastructure, healthcare, education, or anything else connected to the average person's quality of life.  Rob us blind both coming and going.


The only entity that can cause inflation is the Federal Reserve working in cahoots with the government. Companies do not set monetary policy. I really wish the left would learn this.


Xzi said:


> I should be a little more patient where that's concerned, as it will take time for those additional hires and resources to have a notable effect on the agency's ability to go after the big fish.  It's just sickening that they've been getting away with it for four plus decades already, so I'm a bit pessimistic about how much improvement we're really gonna see.


The 87,000 will just be enforcing the same laws the current IRS agents enforce. So if you are looking for any kind of early morning busts with CNN cameras at the ready, you are gonna be waiting a long time. It's not the number of agents, it's the actual laws the uniparty have been passing for decades. 

Honest question. Why aren't you mad at Congress for passing laws with loopholes for their donors?


Xzi said:


> It comes back to the two-tiered system I mentioned before.  The poorer you are, the more stingy they'll be about allowing you to claim write-offs and losses, and it's all the more likely you'll be audited.  Even in the tens of thousands you're gonna be under a lot more scrutiny than a billionaire claiming losses in the tens of millions.


Poor people do not make the same kind of income as rich people do. And I'm certain that a higher percentage of billionaires are audited than the bottom 90% of income earners.

Of course, an easy fix would be to just eliminate taxes for anybody making less than $250,000. That way poor people would be paying $0 in taxes, which they pretty much do now. It would save taxpayers millions per year in paperwork. I floated this idea on another thread and leftists were totally against cutting taxes for low income earners. Maybe we could agree on that though. We do seem to be on a roll lately.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 6, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> The only entity that can cause inflation is the Federal Reserve working in cahoots with the government. Companies do not set monetary policy. I really wish the left would learn this.


The Fed constantly has to print new money because the vast majority of what's already been printed ends up stashed in hiding places around the globe by billionaires.  Less hoarding of wealth that can't even be spent in a thousand lifetimes = less inflation.



TraderPatTX said:


> The 87,000 will just be enforcing the same laws the current IRS agents enforce. So if you are looking for any kind of early morning busts with CNN cameras at the ready, you are gonna be waiting a long time. It's not the number of agents, it's the actual laws the uniparty have been passing for decades.


It's both the number of agents and the IRS' funding that are major factors here.  It can take years to audit a rich person with hundreds of sources of income, but ultimately each dollar spent auditing them yields an exponentially greater return than auditing anyone making less than 100K would.



TraderPatTX said:


> Honest question. Why aren't you mad at Congress for passing laws with loopholes for their donors?


I am, but I'm more angry at their billionaire donors who lobbied for the loopholes in the first place.  Also at the Republican-majority Supreme Court which brought us Citizens United and ensured that unregulated capitalism would be able to overrule our democracy and our government.



TraderPatTX said:


> Of course, an easy fix would be to just eliminate taxes for anybody making less than $250,000. That way poor people would be paying $0 in taxes, which they pretty much do now. It would save taxpayers millions per year in paperwork. I floated this idea on another thread and leftists were totally against cutting taxes for low income earners. Maybe we could agree on that though. We do seem to be on a roll lately.


Sounds good to me.  Naturally we'd have to raise both the minimum rate on all tax brackets above $250,000 to compensate, but anyone making that much is already living an extremely comfortable life as-is.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> The Fed constantly has to print new money because the vast majority of what's already been printed ends up stashed in hiding places around the globe by billionaires.  Less hoarding of wealth that can't even be spent in a thousand lifetimes = less inflation.


That is not why the Federal Reserve prints money. They print money because the government keeps borrowing trillions of dollars every year. We have too many dollars chasing too few goods. The federal reserve banking system we've been living under since 1913 is failing, which is a reason why other countries are not buying oil in dollars anymore. We are about to lose our reserve currency status of the world.


Xzi said:


> It's both the number of agents and the IRS' funding that are major factors here.  It can take years to audit a rich person with hundreds of sources of income, but ultimately each dollar spent auditing them yields an exponentially greater return than auditing anyone making less than 100K would.


The IRS is not going to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars auditing one billionaire over the course of years when all they need to do is send letters to a million middle class taxpayers who will just pay without a legal challenge.


Xzi said:


> I am, but I'm more angry at their billionaire donors who lobbied for the loopholes in the first place.  Also at the Republican-majority Supreme Court which brought us Citizens United and ensured that unregulated capitalism would be able to overrule our democracy and our government.


You are more angry at the fat kid who keeps asking for free ice cream and not the parent who keeps giving it to him making him fatter. That doesn't make sense. Let's hold the people who actually hands the free ice cream out responsible. And I agree, Citizens United needs to be looked at again. If Roe v Wade can be overturned, precedent has been set to overturn other Supreme Court decisions and Citizens United would be a good start. And I used to support that decision, but not after what I've seen corporations do over the past 6 years.


Xzi said:


> Sounds good to me.  Naturally we'd have to raise both the minimum rate on all tax brackets above $250,000 to compensate, but anyone making that much is already living an extremely comfortable life as-is.


Making $250,000 in Los Angeles or NYC is barely making ends meet. Here in south Florida, it's becoming a challenge making it on a six figure salary.

I really am glad that we have found a lot of common ground even though I know we disagree on a lot. It's ok to disagree. It would be a boring world if everybody thought the same way as me. I hope others are reading our conversation and taking note.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> The Fed constantly has to print new money because the vast majority of what's already been printed ends up stashed in hiding places around the globe by billionaires.  Less hoarding of wealth that can't even be spent in a thousand lifetimes = less inflation.


That’s not why the fed “prints money” - somebody doesn’t know how quantitive easing works. Inflation is, by and large, created in Washington.

Edit: As for cutting taxes, the bottom 50% of earners contribute 3% of total income tax revenue. The top 1% of earners cover 39%, which is more than the bottom 90% (29% of the total). If half of the country stopped paying the income tax altogether, the federal government wouldn’t even notice the dent. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to perpetuate the income tax in its current form, it was supposed to fund the war effort when it was introduced and we’re not in the middle of a world war anymore. It’s fleecing the poor for next to no benefit on the final tally - the people could spend that money better, improving their quality of life tremendously.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s not why the fed “prints money” - somebody doesn’t know how quantitive easing works. Inflation is, by and large, created in Washington.


Quantitative easing only started becoming more common after the 2008 crash, and we both know which individuals and entities were responsible for that.  Such measures wouldn't be necessary at all if the working class had more purchasing power to begin with, and if billionaires didn't have such a constantly detrimental effect on the economy's health.



TraderPatTX said:


> The IRS is not going to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars auditing one billionaire over the course of years when all they need to do is send letters to a million middle class taxpayers who will just pay without a legal challenge.


It's tens of thousands to recover tens of millions, or tens of thousands to recover thousands from average Joes.  Wealthy individuals are also far more likely to try to illegally evade taxes in the first place, as it's nigh impossible to hide anything behind an income of roughly ~50K from a single source.



TraderPatTX said:


> You are more angry at the fat kid who keeps asking for free ice cream and not the parent who keeps giving it to him making him fatter.


With a two-party system, it was inevitable that we'd eventually elect a shitheel president like Reagan who would be responsible for out of control deregulation.  Billionaires should not exist at all, but they do, and they're fully aware that what they're doing is wrong.  They're not children, and the consequences for their actions must reflect that.



TraderPatTX said:


> Making $250,000 in Los Angeles or NYC is barely making ends meet. Here in south Florida, it's becoming a challenge making it on a six figure salary.


I don't even object to the idea of tuning the federal tax rate on a cost of living scale, state by state.  At some point though, it needs to jump to between 70% and 90%, a million plus in annual income for that sounds about right.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> There is absolutely no legitimate reason to perpetuate the income tax in its current form, it was supposed to fund the war effort when it was introduced and we’re not in the middle of a world war anymore.


Isn't the U.S. always at war with someone. Plenty of wars to fund our efforts for world domination.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Quantitative easing only started becoming more common after the 2008 crash, and we both know which individuals and entities were responsible for that.  Such measures wouldn't be necessary at all if the working class had more purchasing power to begin with, and if billionaires didn't have such a constantly detrimental effect on the economy's health.


I bet we have a different opinion on what caused it and who was responsible. Lemme think, who forced banks to approve loans for people who couldn’t possibly pay them off… and who told those banks that if things go sideways, they’ll just get bailed out anyway…

We’ll never know. Definitely wasn’t the government though. 

For the record, I blame both Republicans *and* Democrats since both parties are hellbent on improving the housing issue by any means necessary, with complete disregard for the consequences. If I were in charge of a bank and the government told me that I can give loans to just about anyone and if they end up unable to pay later down the line they’ll foot the bill, I’d be giving out loans like Halloween candy since it’s a risk-free operation - I’m making money no matter what. Just my 2 cents.


SG854 said:


> Isn't the U.S. always at war with someone. Plenty of wars to fund our efforts for world domination.


Not a world war or a war on home turf, although the Ukraine faucet seems to be permanently open for the time being. Novel thought - maybe the government just has too much money, and too much control over money supply. Thanks Woodrow Wilson, thanks FDR.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Quantitative easing only started becoming more common after the 2008 crash, and we both know which individuals and entities were responsible for that.  Such measures wouldn't be necessary at all if the working class had more purchasing power to begin with, and if billionaires didn't have such a constantly detrimental effect on the economy's health.


Please explain the out of control inflation during the 70's. There were a lot less billionaires back then than what we have now.


Xzi said:


> It's tens of thousands to recover tens of millions, or tens of thousands to recover thousands from average Joes.  Wealthy individuals are also far more likely to try to illegally evade taxes in the first place, as it's nigh impossible to hide anything behind an income of roughly ~50K from a single source.


The government is not going to go after their own donors. Full stop.


Xzi said:


> With a two-party system, it was inevitable that we'd eventually elect a shitheel president like Reagan who would be responsible for out of control deregulation.  Billionaires should not exist at all, but they do, and they're fully aware that what they're doing is wrong.  They're not children, and the consequences for their actions must reflect that.


The Democrats controlled the House during both of Reagan's terms and controlled the Senate for the final two years. Are you understanding the uniparty problem that we have had for decades now?


Xzi said:


> I don't even object to the idea of tuning the federal tax rate on a cost of living scale, state by state.  At some point though, it needs to jump to between 70% and 90%, a million plus in annual income for that sounds about right.


Why does that sound about right? Because you think so? That is just using the tax code as a weapon out of jealousy, not real policy. If we continue to have a tax code, the rich will always bend it to their will and prevent the rest of us from reaching those same goals. It's why large corporations push for regulations, because they can afford it while their smaller competitors can not. Rich people and corporations will always have the means to lobby Congress to write laws that favor them.

We did not have an income tax or a central bank until 1913, and we also didn't have billionaires before their creation. We barely even had any millionaires. Is there a correlation? Who knows?

	Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2023



SG854 said:


> Isn't the U.S. always at war with someone. Plenty of wars to fund our efforts for world domination.


We are currently not in a war right now, surprisingly. But they sure are trying to start one with a nuclear power and nobody sees a problem with this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> The government is not going to go after their own donors. Full stop.


There are two tax brackets that the IRS is most interested in - up to $25K and over $500K. The first group is easier and faster to audit, doesn’t have the resources to fight the government *and* can be easily trapped in the web of various welfare program requirements. This is supported by GAO analysis - the IRS aims at easy targets.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960

Here’s another graph to better visualise this, since the GAO one is ass.




You have higher odds (double) of being audited if you have zero income than you do if you make $500K-$1M. Cases of more than $10M income within one tax year are relatively few and far between - around 23.5K households in the U.S., and they’re well-off enough to offload the duty of filing taxes to an army of pencil pushers, so they don’t care.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> I bet we have a different opinion on what caused it and who was responsible. Lemme think, who forced banks to approve loans for people who couldn’t possibly pay them off… and who told those banks that if things go sideways, they’ll just get bailed out anyway…


The same people that brought us the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo without any exit strategy.  At the behest of their billionaire and corporate donors, of course.  They were even warned in the early 2000s that deregulation was causing instability in the housing market, and kept pushing ahead with more of it anyway.  Probably in the hopes that a Dem would be elected president before the shit ultimately hit the fan.



TraderPatTX said:


> Please explain the out of control inflation during the 70's. There were a lot less billionaires back then than what we have now.


Nixon's economic policies were garbage, that pretty much sums it up.



TraderPatTX said:


> The government is not going to go after their own donors. Full stop.


For Democrats, going after billionaires and megacorps is good optics.  That's not a guarantee it will happen, but those were the instructions Biden gave to the IRS along with the additional funding and resources.  Additionally, not every billionaire and corporation donates to political parties.  We'll just have to wait and see.  As I said before, I'm tepidly optimistic at best.



TraderPatTX said:


> The Democrats controlled the House during both of Reagan's terms and controlled the Senate for the final two years. Are you understanding the uniparty problem that we have had for decades now?


In other words, Reagan got everything he wanted for six years.  Thus the era of "greed is good" began, as did the decline of the American middle class.



TraderPatTX said:


> Why does that sound about right? Because you think so? That is just using the tax code as a weapon out of jealousy, not real policy.


No, it's governance for the many instead of the few.  Again: the top tax bracket was 90% when the middle class was at its most prosperous in this country.  It wasn't coincidence, and in the modern day we can't keep making the same mistakes over and over expecting different results.

You proposed we eliminate taxation for those making less than $250,000, it's only common sense then that anybody making more would need to have their taxes raised to compensate for that.  You might be swayed by crocodile tears coming from people looking to buy a large yacht to tow their smaller yacht, but I won't be.  We could literally tax billionaires at 100%, and their standard of living would not change in the slightest.


----------



## Blue (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> You proposed we eliminate taxation for those making less than $250,000, it's only common sense then that anybody making more would need to have their taxes raised to compensate for that. You might be swayed by crocodile tears coming from people looking to buy a large yacht to tow their smaller yacht, but I won't be. We could literally tax billionaires at 100%, and their standard of living would not change in the slightest.


Pretty much because they (business owners .etc) have more resources to control what is actually personal/taxable income, turning over $200k paying yourself small dividend/salary income and writing off costs and owning expensive assets under the business rather than personally allows a better standard of living than an employee making the same amount or more to a level.
Increasing tax rates just punishes hardworking people left in high ranking corporate or professional jobs rather than people with high abundant wealth, not 'fair' if legal loopholes still exist.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

Blue said:


> Increasing tax rates just punishes hardworking people left in high ranking corporate or professional jobs rather than people with high abundant wealth, not 'fair' if legal loopholes still exist.


Well I think it's safe to say that in this hypothetical scenario, we would also be simplifying and flattening out the tax code.  Having it be longer than a Tale of Two Cities and War and Peace combined benefits exclusively the people who can hire a full battalion of tax lawyers.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> The same people that brought us the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo without any exit strategy.  At the behest of their billionaire and corporate donors, of course.  They were even warned in the early 2000s that deregulation was causing instability in the housing market, and kept pushing ahead with more of it anyway.  Probably in the hopes that a Dem would be elected president before the shit ultimately hit the fan.


I think you have a surface-level understanding of the financial crisis. The government, on both sides of the aisle, set up incentives for the banking system to engage in activity that is not only risky, but cannot possibly end well, all for the purposes of providing mortgages to people who were not in a position to own property. They then backed those incentives with mortgage-backed securities and collateral debt obligations, the latter of which offered interest rates higher than government bonds and were associated with zero risk. They effectively told banks to give people “free money” and if they’re unable to pay back, the bank can both repossess the property *and* cash their checks. You would be insane not to take advantage of that, so lenders did, en masse, until they overextended themselves and ran out of liquidity. The bubble was created by the government claiming that it can overcome the law of conservation of energy and magically turn one dollar into three, to put it in layman’s terms - it had to end the way it did. Deregulation’s one thing, boneheaded monetary policy is another. No amount of regulation will make someone who’s unable to pay their mortgage conjure up money to pay it with, and that’s that. The expectation was that as soon as people are housed, they will be able to increase their capability to make income. Surprise, as it turns out, people who are bad with money are bad with money whether they own the roof over their heads or not. That’s neither here nor there though.


----------



## Benja81 (Jan 7, 2023)

Trumpists aside, how is it not a red flag that every president until now has divulged their returns but suddenly ronald mcdonald wont do it. Its important for presidents to divulge this for obvious fraud reasons, although they didn't find anything criminal anyway, the bigger concern about his taxes as well as why they need to be divulged is due to foreign interests/loyaties. Ever heard the phrase money is power/root of all evil/where the heart is/need I go on?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> No amount of regulation will make someone who’s unable to pay their mortgage conjure up money to pay it with, and that’s that. The expectation was that as soon as people are housed, they will be able to increase their capability to make income.


Give me a break, as if banks weren't fully aware that the predatory loans they were handing out would never be repaid.  No employer looks at a resume and says, "oh hey, you live in a house instead of an apartment, here's a 500% raise!"  The whole point of the scheme was that people make payments for a few months to a year, and then the bank gets to repossess the house as well.  They knew they were creating a bubble, and they knew it'd pop.  Thus the reason "free market" economics are doomed to failure: billionaires and corporations will only ever do the right thing after exhausting all other options, or if they're regulated into a very tight box and monitored so closely that it becomes uncomfortable for the people at the top.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Give me a break, as if banks weren't fully aware that the predatory loans they were handing out would never be repaid.  No employer looks at a resume and says, "oh hey, you live in a house instead of an apartment, here's a 500% raise!"  The whole point of the scheme was that people make payments for a few months to a year, and then the bank gets to repossess the house as well.  They knew they were creating a bubble, and they knew it'd pop.  Thus the reason "free market" economics are doomed to failure: billionaires and corporations will only ever do the right thing after exhausting all other options, or if they're regulated into a very tight box and monitored so closely that it becomes uncomfortable for the people at the top.


Of course they knew - what does that change? They’re not in the business of ensuring that people have housing, they’re in the business of finance. Their core objective is to make money. If you set up perverse incentives, you will get perverse results. The government wanted to make access to housing easier, but it did so in a dumb-dumb way and the economy crashed. The incentive was to provide loans, not to ensure a favourable outcome, so why would anyone care what the outcome was? Banks don’t control economic policy (although they do lobby, of course) - the government does. Ultimately it’s the government’s fault, it (almost) always is. The banks did exactly what they’re designed to do - their only error was overextending themselves, and the banks that did that filed for bankruptcy as a result, that’s their boo-boo. The bubble was created, and popped, by Washington. If you give someone a bottomless jar of money and tell them they can take as much as they want, someone’s taking the whole jar - it’s gonna happen. Those loans would’ve never been given if the government didn’t provide asinine securities to back them up, they would’ve been too risky (with proof positive being that they were unpayable) and the bubble would’ve never formed.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> The same people that brought us the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo without any exit strategy.  At the behest of their billionaire and corporate donors, of course.  They were even warned in the early 2000s that deregulation was causing instability in the housing market, and kept pushing ahead with more of it anyway.  Probably in the hopes that a Dem would be elected president before the shit ultimately hit the fan.


The housing market didn't crash because of deregulation and I know you can't prove it. It was caused by the government forcing banks to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them. All in the name of equity.


Xzi said:


> Nixon's economic policies were garbage, that pretty much sums it up.


No argument there. Nixon took us off the gold standard and began the process of making China a manufacturing powerhouse.


Xzi said:


> For Democrats, going after billionaires and megacorps is good optics.  That's not a guarantee it will happen, but those were the instructions Biden gave to the IRS along with the additional funding and resources.  Additionally, not every billionaire and corporation donates to political parties.  We'll just have to wait and see.  As I said before, I'm tepidly optimistic at best.


It was good optics back in the 80's and 90's, but after 30 years of doing nothing, the people realize that we are truly governed by a uniparty who hates people like you and me.


Xzi said:


> In other words, Reagan got everything he wanted for six years.  Thus the era of "greed is good" began, as did the decline of the American middle class.


Now you are getting the concept of the uniparty, but the decline of the entire country, not just the middle class can be traced back to 1913.


Xzi said:


> No, it's governance for the many instead of the few.  Again: the top tax bracket was 90% when the middle class was at its most prosperous in this country.  It wasn't coincidence, and in the modern day we can't keep making the same mistakes over and over expecting different results.


Nobody was being taxed 90% back then. There were so many loopholes that the actual tax rate for high income earners was lower in the 1950's than in the 2000's.


Xzi said:


> You proposed we eliminate taxation for those making less than $250,000, it's only common sense then that anybody making more would need to have their taxes raised to compensate for that.  You might be swayed by crocodile tears coming from people looking to buy a large yacht to tow their smaller yacht, but I won't be.  We could literally tax billionaires at 100%, and their standard of living would not change in the slightest.


Government would need to cut all of this extra trillions of dollars being spent since Covid hit. Then we can talk about raising taxes on people.


----------



## Nothereed (Jan 7, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> The housing market didn't crash because of deregulation and I know you can't prove it. It was caused by the government forcing banks to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them. All in the name of equity.


Democratic controlled 102nd congress under George Bush in 1992, weaked regulations revolving the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which resulted making more money available for the issuance of home loan.
Additional the Republican controlled congress of 106, which then repealed parts of the Glass-Steal Act. 

Those who were lobbying for changes to it (repeals) happened to also be the riskiest later on.
Both of these are cited as pretty big causes, as if they weren't repealed, the damage couldn't have blown up nearly as high, or happen at all.

The regulations got looser, not stricter. The goverment didn't force, the "free market" did it's thing, using it's immense power to influence government, to enable them to get richer, at the cost of everyone else.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> There are two tax brackets that the IRS is most interested in - up to $25K and over $500K. The first group is easier and faster to audit, doesn’t have the resources to fight the government *and* can be easily trapped in the web of various welfare program requirements. This is supported by GAO analysis - the IRS aims at easy targets.
> 
> https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960
> 
> ...



https://reason.com/2023/01/06/in-2022-the-irs-went-after-the-very-poorest-taxpayers/


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Nothereed said:


> Democratic controlled 102nd congress under George Bush in 1992, weaked regulations revolving the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which resulted making more money available for the issuance of home loan.


The 102nd Congress was controlled by Democrats in the House and Senate.


Nothereed said:


> Additional the Republican controlled congress of 106, which then repealed parts of the Glass-Steal Act.


You just proved that a uniparty has existed since at least the 1990's. Thanks for backing me up there.


Nothereed said:


> Those who were lobbying for changes to it (repeals) happened to also be the riskiest later on.
> Both of these are cited as pretty big causes, as if they weren't repealed, the damage couldn't have blown up nearly as high, or happen at all.


I would love to see the restoration of the Glass-Steagell Act.


Nothereed said:


> The regulations got looser, not stricter. The goverment didn't force, the "free market" did it's thing, using it's immense power to influence government, to enable them to get richer, at the cost of everyone else.


Banks gave risky loans because they were told the US taxpayer would protect them from their losses. And they were right when both Bush and Obama bailed them out. Hence, the uniparty came to rescue their rich donors.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Hanafuda said:


> https://reason.com/2023/01/06/in-2022-the-irs-went-after-the-very-poorest-taxpayers/


Correct - there’s plenty of poor people to go around and it takes almost zero effort to strong-arm them into submission. Anyone who’s under the impression that the extra IRS spending will be spent on auditing the rich is a fool - they’ll squeeze the poor harder in the long run.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course they knew - what does that change?


"Of course I knew sticking a fork in an electrical outlet was a bad idea, but I just had to be sure."



Foxi4 said:


> They’re not in the business of ensuring that people have housing, they’re in the business of finance. Their core objective is to make money. If you set up perverse incentives, you will get perverse results. The government wanted to make access to housing easier, but it did so in a dumb-dumb way and the economy crashed. The incentive was to provide loans, not to ensure a favourable outcome, so why would anyone care what the outcome was? Banks don’t control economic policy (although they do lobby, of course) - the government does. Ultimately it’s the government’s fault, it (almost) always is. The banks did exactly what they’re designed to do - their only error was overextending themselves, and the banks that did that filed for bankruptcy as a result, that’s their boo-boo. The bubble was created, and popped, by Washington. If you give someone a bottomless jar of money and tell them they can take as much as they want, someone’s taking the whole jar - it’s gonna happen. Those loans would’ve never been given if the government didn’t provide asinine securities to back them up, they would’ve been too risky (with proof positive being that they were unpayable) and the bubble would’ve never formed.


So your claim is that banks and Wall Street were the victims of the policies and deregulation they had lobbied for for decades, got it.  Classic bike and stick meme.

Seems we're at least in agreement then that government cannot play the role of buddy with big business, as is SOP for the Republican party.  It must instead play the role of responsible parent to hormonal and irrational tweens, as they're liable to get someone killed without supervision and firm boundaries in place.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> "Of course I knew sticking a fork in an electrical outlet was a bad idea, but I just had to be sure."
> 
> 
> So your claim is that banks and Wall Street were the victims of the policies and deregulation they had lobbied for for decades, got it.  Classic bike and stick meme.


The true victims are our kids and grandkids who will have to pay all that money the federal government borrowed from the federal reserve to bail out the banks who did the government's bidding because they were "too big to fail"; with interest, of course. We should have just let them fail and let smaller banks rise up and take their place. But I was assured by people on the right and the left that we couldn't deal with that much pain back then. Some of those same people are claiming that the current inflation is transitory and that the economy is rebounding right now.

On our current spending levels, by 2035 it will cost more to service the debt than to fund the Department of Defense. The only people who will benefit are the central bankers at the Federal Reserve.


Xzi said:


> Seems we're at least in agreement then that government cannot play the role of buddy with big business, as is SOP for the Republican party.  It must instead play the role of responsible parent to hormonal and irrational tweens, as they're liable to get someone killed without firm boundaries in place.


The government cannot play any role outside of what the Constitution enumerates. Government is not your buddy, your parent or your ATM machine. It doesn't care about you. It doesn't even know you. It only cares about itself, which is why every single person in Washington, with one exception, accumulates an insane amount of wealth not in line with their salaries.

This is why people worrying about Trump's taxes is nothing but a distraction from the real crimes of the uniparty. This keeps us arguing instead of going after the real criminals.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

TraderPatTX said:


> We should have just let them fail and let smaller banks rise up and take their place.


On that we agree, and it should be the same with millionaires/billionaires who perpetually claim more in losses than profits on their taxes.  The government should not be in the business of keeping generational wealth afloat, aka keeping the rich rich and the poor poor.



TraderPatTX said:


> On our current spending levels, by 2035 it will cost more to service the debt than to fund the Department of Defense.


Seems a simple fix then, eh?  Take 10% out of the current DoD budget annually and start repaying the national debt.  They lose track of more money and assets than that on a yearly basis anyway.



TraderPatTX said:


> Government is not your buddy, your parent or your ATM machine.  It doesn't care about you. It doesn't even know you. It only cares about itself, which is why every single person in Washington, with one exception, accumulates an insane amount of wealth not in line with their salaries.


The analogy is about big business, not individuals.  And even supposing the government does only care about self-preservation, it cannot allow corporations to set policy, lest we complete our descent into authoritarian oligarchy and government loses all its power.  Things would be even worse under a Bezos or a Musk than they were under Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> "Of course I knew sticking a fork in an electrical outlet was a bad idea, but I just had to be sure."


They’re not the ones sticking the fork in the outlet, they’re the electric company.


Xzi said:


> So your claim is that banks and Wall Street were the victims of the policies and deregulation they had lobbied for for decades, got it.  Classic bike and stick meme.
> 
> Seems we're at least in agreement then that government cannot play the role of buddy with big business, as is SOP for the Republican party.  It must instead play the role of responsible parent to hormonal and irrational tweens, as they're liable to get someone killed without supervision and firm boundaries in place.


I don’t know how you reached that conclusion from my post, and it’s way too late tonight for me to untangle this. The government offered a tray of free milkshakes and then acted surprised when the fat kids drank all of them, I don’t know what’s so confusing about this. The government is at fault, plain and simple - the government enacted the policy and this was the result.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jan 7, 2023)

Foxi4 said:


> They’re not the ones sticking the fork in the outlet, they’re the electric company.
> 
> I don’t know how you reached that conclusion from my post, and it’s way too late tonight for me to untangle this. The government offered a tray of free milkshakes and then acted surprised when the fat kids drank all of them, I don’t know what’s so confusing about this. The government is at fault, plain and simple - the government enacted the policy and this was the result.



sounds an awful lot like sewing distrust in your institutions, im told that makes you a maga


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> On that we agree, and it should be the same with millionaires/billionaires who perpetually claim more in losses than profits on their taxes.  The government should not be in the business of keeping generational wealth afloat, aka keeping the rich rich and the poor poor.


How do you count losses as income?


Xzi said:


> Seems a simple fix then, eh?  Take 10% out of the current DoD budget annually and start repaying the national debt.  They lose track of more money and assets than that on a yearly basis anyway.


Take 10% from everything and it will be paid off even faster. But I think there is another solution. Abolish the Federal Reserve and there is no more debt outside of the few trillion we owe other countries.


Xzi said:


> The analogy is about big business, not individuals.  And even supposing the government does only care about self-preservation, it cannot allow corporations to set policy, lest we complete our descent into authoritarian oligarchy and government loses all its power.  Things would be even worse under a Bezos or a Musk than they were under Trump.


Too late. Big Pharma already controls the government, the media, Hollywood and academia. Government will always be up to the highest bidder. Best thing to do is to decentralize government back to the states. These corporations have it easy controlling one government. Watch them trip over themselves trying to control 50, lol.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2023)

lolcatzuru said:


> sounds an awful lot like sewing distrust in your institutions, im told that makes you a maga


Well libertarians are essentially the original MAGA crowd, after all.  Anything bad that ever happens in the world must somehow be government's fault, including when there are consequences for corporations getting exactly what they asked for from the politicians they funded and helped elect.

"I choose business ethics."

Libertarians:


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jan 7, 2023)

Xzi said:


> Well libertarians are essentially the original MAGA crowd, after all.  Anything bad that ever happens in the world must somehow be government's fault, including when there are consequences for corporations getting exactly what they asked for from the politicians they funded and helped elect.
> 
> "I choose business ethics."
> 
> ...



well where i want to be clear that i dont in any way ever support posting a picture of someone pointing a gun at someone else in any capacity, why is it so hard to believe that it could be the governments fault? this is i think my disconnect, why is everyone in the government a god?


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 12:16 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> How do you count losses as income?


That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm simply saying losses shouldn't be subtracted from taxes owed unless that would put a person in serious financial jeopardy, which is never the case for billionaires and corporations.  Let 'em eat the loss, their failures are their own, and smaller fish have to be allowed to succeed where they could not.



TraderPatTX said:


> Take 10% from everything and it will be paid off even faster.


Our military is larger and more well-funded than the next ten countries combined, while our infrastructure, healthcare, and education systems rank as some of the worst among developed nations.  So it'd be far more prudent to take 20% from the former, put 10% of it toward the latter, and the other 10% toward paying down the debt.



lolcatzuru said:


> well where i want to be clear that i dont in any way ever support posting a picture of someone pointing a gun at someone else in any capacity


Lol you've never seen Billy Madison?  Highly recommend, was a much better era for comedy movies.



lolcatzuru said:


> why is it so hard to believe that it could be the governments fault? this is i think my disconnect, why is everyone in the government a god?


It's a chicken versus egg type situation.  Big banks and weapons manufacturers funded GWB's campaign, so it was inevitable that he'd give them kickbacks in the form of legalized predatory loan schemes and imperialist invasions that would turn into forever wars.  Both the people in charge of government and the people in charge of those corporations at the time deserve all the blame that comes their way.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 12:40 AM)

Xzi said:


> That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm simply saying losses shouldn't be subtracted from taxes owed unless that would put a person in serious financial jeopardy, which is never the case for billionaires and corporations.  Let 'em eat the loss, their failures are their own, and smaller fish have to be allowed to succeed where they could not.
> 
> 
> Our military is larger and more well-funded than the next ten countries combined, while our infrastructure, healthcare, and education systems rank as some of the worst among developed nations.  So it'd be far more prudent to take 20% from the former, put 10% of it toward the latter, and the other 10% toward paying down the debt.
> ...



wel of course ive seen it, im an adult, but i have to be clear about that because in this day and age people can make up blatant lies about anyone they want and as long as the right people profit, other very sad people take it as fact even when it isnt.  You conveniently dodged my question by bringing up one of your guys without answering the question, why are all politicians gods?


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 12:54 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> You conveniently dodged my question by bringing up one of your guys without answering the question, why are all politicians gods?


In what way did I dodge the question when I clearly just blamed a large set of politicians for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the 2008 economic crash?  Some Dems had to vote with Republicans to make that shit happen, so obviously they aren't entirely without fault either.

In my thirty-six years on this planet I've never seen any politician truly _worshiped _with the exception of Donald Trump.  Nobody's driving around out there with a truck tailgate completely blanketed in pro-Biden stickers, and a full-sized Biden flag mounted into the bed.  Politicians are meant to be public servants, not have cults of personality formed around them.  That's how you get fascism.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 1:17 AM)

Xzi said:


> In what way did I dodge the question when I clearly just blamed a large set of politicians for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the 2008 economic crash?  Some Dems had to vote with Republicans to make that shit happen, so obviously they aren't entirely without fault either.
> 
> In my thirty-six years on this planet I've never seen any politician truly _worshiped _with the exception of Donald Trump.  Nobody's driving around out there with a truck tailgate completely blanketed in pro-Biden stickers, and a full-sized Biden flag mounted into the bed.  Politicians are meant to be public servants, not have cults of personality formed around them.  That's how you get fascism.



who worshipped him? he's the most hated president ever?  the reason they arent driving around with bradon shit ( respect the office) is because they probably can't afford it.  You dodged it because you already know what im going to say next and you are petrified. I know this is probably a pointless question to answer given your condition, but did you ever stop to consider that maybe people ride around with trump flags because trump at least offered to try and make a difference? we can get into the weeds all you want about whether or not he did or didnt do things, but at least he offered to try and actually talked about some of the problems rather than labeling them " russian disinformation" or " conspiracy theories"

edit- Also, i thought you werent from the US, why would you see trump flags at all? unless trump has a big following in other countries im unfamiliar with.


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 1:31 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> who worshipped him?


That's a rhetorical question, right?  Republicans worshiped him, many of them still do.  Murals, statues, flags, t-shirts, they plastered his ugly face everywhere they possibly could.



lolcatzuru said:


> the reason they arent driving around with bradon shit ( respect the office) is because they probably can't afford it.


At least get your stereotypes straight, it's red states that are well-known for large swaths of their population living in trailer parks.  Stickers and flags are extremely cheap anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point.



lolcatzuru said:


> did you ever stop to consider that maybe people ride around with trump flags because trump at least offered to try and make a difference?


Literally every single politician promises to make a difference, it was obvious from the outset that those were empty promises where Trump is concerned.  He and his supporters are bonded by their mutual hatred of non-whites and people who don't subscribe to their bastardized version of Christianity, nothing more.  They worship him because he echoes their own ignorant opinions back to them.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 1:37 AM)

Xzi said:


> That's a rhetorical question, right?  Republicans worshiped him, many of them still do.  Murals, statues, flags, t-shirts, they plastered his ugly face everywhere they possibly could.
> 
> 
> At least get your stereotypes straight, it's red states that are well-known for large swaths of their population living in trailer parks.  Stickers and flags are extremely cheap anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point.
> ...



its really not, doesnt he have the lowest approval rating out of any president ever? isnt he no longer the GOP frontrunner now? also never saw the statue, you definitely have to cite that one.  Well the flags might have been cheap, but gas is still a bitch and half, but you wouldnt know that not being from the US and all.  next question, whats the name of that thing where you think something happened that didnt? i couldve sworn trump did something that libbies hated and falsely claimed he was a racist over with some kind of large structure, i believe made out of some kind of element idk its been a while now, been a little bit keeping a roof over my head what with the inflation that doesnt exist and the market thats tanking aka "strong as hell".


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 1:47 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> edit- Also, i thought you werent from the US, why would you see trump flags at all? unless trump has a big following in other countries im unfamiliar with.


No clue where you got that idea, the flag on my profile has always been US.  Specifically I live in Colorado, if you must know.  Perhaps you're confusing me for someone else with a Zero avatar?



lolcatzuru said:


> its really not, doesnt he have the lowest approval rating out of any president ever?


True, but that all-time low was still in the 40% range.



lolcatzuru said:


> also never saw the statue, you definitely have to cite that one.


https://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-made-gold-colored-trump-023853128.html

Didn't even bother trying to dodge the golden calf comparisons.



lolcatzuru said:


> isnt he no longer the GOP frontrunner now?


The only person who might challenge him for the nomination, DeSantis, does everything possible to mimic his mannerisms and mode of speech.  The party is going to have an extremely tough time breaking away entirely from the impact Trump has had on it.



lolcatzuru said:


> i couldve sworn trump did something that libbies hated and falsely claimed he was a racist over with some kind of large structure, i believe made out of some kind of element idk its been a while now


You'd have to be more specific, there were hundreds of instances of Trump doing or saying something that could reasonably be construed as racist.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 1:51 AM)

Xzi said:


> No clue where you got that idea, the flag on my profile has always been US.  Specifically I live in Colorado, if you must know.  Perhaps you're confusing me for someone else with a Zero avatar?
> 
> 
> True, but that all-time low was still in the 40% range.
> ...



1.  No no, i  know it was you because you are one of a few mentally ill people that litter the board with almost constant activity, but i remember specifically because you verbally assaulted myself and another user probably on a similarly topic claiming you werent from the US.

2. Ok so less than half of people, lets knock off another 5 for pandering what does that leave, 35% ? more love brandon if i understand my math properly.

3. lol ok you got me with that one, weird that you arent in the US and know that ( btw i have a bit of a beef with your "state" btw)

4. i dont think thats true lemme check... yep not true at all, check

5. but only one specific to a promise that you know about and you are petrified again


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 2:07 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> 1. No no, i know it was you because you are one of a few mentally ill people that litter the board with almost constant activity, but i remember specifically because you verbally assaulted myself and another user probably on a similarly topic claiming you werent from the US.


Again, you must be misremembering.  I've mentioned a desire to move out of the US in the past, but I was born here and have lived here almost my entire life.  Spent just a few years in Germany while I was a toddler and my dad was still in the military.



lolcatzuru said:


> 2. Ok so less than half of people, lets knock off another 5 for pandering what does that leave, 35% ? more love brandon if i understand my math properly.


Approval rating is not the same as worship, it's focused on the tangible results produced by a president's time in office.



lolcatzuru said:


> i have a bit of a beef with your "state" btw


I don't care.  Texans also claim to dislike us, yet every year they travel here in mass for marijuana tourism.



lolcatzuru said:


> 4. i dont think thats true lemme check... yep not true at all, check


I can tell you didn't really check because of how little time this took to post, so here you go:





lolcatzuru said:


> 5. but only one specific to a promise that you know about and you are petrified again


No fucking clue what this is supposed to mean.  Are you talking about the border wall?  If so, I'd say that while the concept is moronic, it's not necessarily racist.  It's the intent behind it that could be interpreted that way, however.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 2:14 AM)

Xzi said:


> Again, you must be misremembering.  I've mentioned a desire to move out of the US in the past, but I was born here and have lived here almost my entire life.  Spent just a few years in Germany while I was a toddler and my dad was still in the military.
> 
> 
> Approval rating is not the same as worship, it's focused on the tangible results produced by a president's time in office.
> ...




well the intent thing is obviously wrong, but yea, took your time getting there.  See this is the problem, you link to one source, that is an opinion, and you take it as fact, this is how these problems begin.

i was trying to make a joke to try to humanize you a bit with the "colorado thing" the joke being i wish boebert wouldve lost, i wouldve loved to see her onlyfans. btw i actually also/actually live in a communist state, whats up brotha!

yes i often dont check things that dont make sense thats true.

The most important thing is the first part, if i can prove not only the verbal assault ( which is pretty common, though im guessing with a mod around you are behaving) will you at LEAST bring out the alter that made the claim?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sunday at 2:20 AM)

Xzi said:


> That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm simply saying losses shouldn't be subtracted from taxes owed unless that would put a person in serious financial jeopardy, which is never the case for billionaires and corporations.  Let 'em eat the loss, their failures are their own, and smaller fish have to be allowed to succeed where they could not.


I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree to use the tax code as a weapon against individuals. We all know the government will abuse that power.


Xzi said:


> Our military is larger and more well-funded than the next ten countries combined, while our infrastructure, healthcare, and education systems rank as some of the worst among developed nations.  So it'd be far more prudent to take 20% from the former, put 10% of it toward the latter, and the other 10% toward paying down the debt.


Except infrastructure, healthcare and education are not responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. We should stop forcing the states to give their tax money to the federal government and they can spend it on infrastructure, healthcare and education. It'll cut out the middlemen. We know the bureaucrats skim that money off the top.


Xzi said:


> Lol you've never seen Billy Madison?  Highly recommend, was a much better era for comedy movies.


Billy Madison is a classic. Lol


Xzi said:


> It's a chicken versus egg type situation.  Big banks and weapons manufacturers funded GWB's campaign, so it was inevitable that he'd give them kickbacks in the form of legalized predatory loan schemes and imperialist invasions that would turn into forever wars.  Both the people in charge of government and the people in charge of those corporations at the time deserve all the blame that comes their way.


Rich people fund both parties, hence the moniker "uniparty". Look no further than Bankman-Fried. He gave millions to both Democrats and Republicans with the billions he stole. And he's on house arrest. Who is protecting him? The rabbit hole that is FTX goes so much deeper than dark money, PAC's and NGO's. I'm looking forward to watching this story unfold.


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 2:45 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not going to agree to use the tax code as a weapon against individuals.


I mean if that's how you want to interpret it, it's already being used as a weapon against the poor.  Might as well use it against people who can actually afford to take the hit instead.



TraderPatTX said:


> Except infrastructure, healthcare and education are not responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.


It doesn't matter, there's nobody else who's going to step in to take care of those vital public resources, and it's much better that our tax dollars go toward those things than corporate welfare and building bombs.



TraderPatTX said:


> We should stop forcing the states to give their tax money to the federal government and they can spend it on infrastructure, healthcare and education.


Uhh that's not how things work...state and federal taxes are two different things.  State governments are not large enough to support those services on their own, unless perhaps you want state tax rates raised exponentially.  And even then you'd have heated arguments over which states are responsible for maintaining interstate highways.



TraderPatTX said:


> Rich people fund both parties


They do, but that doesn't change the fact that each administration is responsible for their own decisions.  Obama can't be blamed for 9/11 any more than Trump can be blamed for the Hindenburg.  Voters can only make informed decisions based on observable results.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sunday at 3:10 AM)

Xzi said:


> I mean if that's how you want to interpret it, it's already being used as a weapon against the poor.  Might as well use it against people who can actually afford to take the hit instead.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter, there's nobody else who's going to step in to take care of those vital public resources, and it's much better that our tax dollars go toward those things than corporate welfare and building bombs.
> ...



doesnt maddow blame everything on trump?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sunday at 4:11 AM)

Xzi said:


> I mean if that's how you want to interpret it, it's already being used as a weapon against the poor.  Might as well use it against people who can actually afford to take the hit instead.


That's why I suggested eliminating the tax code for the poor. It wasn't supposed to be for them or us initially. It was sold as only being for the rich and then of course, the government couldn't help itself and came after everybody.


Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter, there's nobody else who's going to step in to take care of those vital public resources, and it's much better that our tax dollars go toward those things than corporate welfare and building bombs.


States can pay for their own stuff. There's no reason why my tax dollars should go to building road in California if I live in Florida. There's a reason why we have state legislators and governors. Make them work for a change.


Xzi said:


> Uhh that's not how things work...state and federal taxes are two different things.  State governments are not large enough to support those services on their own, unless perhaps you want state tax rates raised exponentially.  And even then you'd have heated arguments over which states are responsible for maintaining interstate highways.


State governments are large enough to support those services. Where do you think the federal government gets money from besides borrowing it from the Federal Reserve? Remember the argument over blue states supporting red states. That argument would be eliminated. And states can take care of interstate highways that are within their borders. States are more than capable of working together.


Xzi said:


> They do, but that doesn't change the fact that each administration is responsible for their own decisions.  Obama can't be blamed for 9/11 any more than Trump can be blamed for the Hindenburg.  Voters can only make informed decisions based on observable results.


Except the observable results are skewed. Take inflation. If we figured inflation the same way we did back in 1980, the rate would be 15%. Unemployment figures have been changed through the years also. Both were changed to make them look better than they really are. Amazing how that happens.


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 4:46 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> State governments are large enough to support those services.


Some are, some are not. What you're proposing is an end to the United States and dissolution into fifty small individual countries, a number of which would instantly have to be reclassified as third-world, as they're currently operating on a budget deficit.  As funny as it would be seeing conservatives unable to cope with their own "rugged survivalist" fantasies, a lot of innocent and apolitical individuals would also suffer and/or die during such a transition.



TraderPatTX said:


> States are more than capable of working together.


You sure about that?  A lot of them seem to have trouble with that as things stand _now.  _The governors of Texas and Florida have been shipping buses of migrants to politicians' houses in blue states, FFS.



TraderPatTX said:


> Except the observable results are skewed. Take inflation.


They really aren't.  People are pissed about inflation and a whole lot of them blame Biden for it, but an equal or greater amount of people are skeptical that Republicans have any real solutions to get it under control.  They've become a party of grievances without any policy platform, thus the underwhelming election results for them during midterms.


----------



## Jayro (Sunday at 4:57 AM)

Xzi said:


> Some are, some are not. What you're proposing is an end to the United States and dissolution into fifty small individual countries, a number of which would instantly have to be reclassified as third-world, as they're currently operating on a budget deficit.  As funny as it would be seeing conservatives unable to cope with their own "rugged survivalist" fantasies, a lot of innocent and apolitical individuals would also suffer and/or die during such a transition.
> 
> 
> You sure about that?  A lot of them seem to have trouble with that as things stand _now.  _The governors of Texas and Florida have been shipping buses of migrants to politicians' houses in blue states, FFS.
> ...


It's because they have nothing but complaints, with no solutions on how to fix things. Instead, they just try to push horrible shit that literally makes everything worse for regular Americans, like trying to gut Medicare and Social Security for example. They KNOW people need those things to survive, and they just don't give two shits. They don't value the lives of humans after they're born.


----------



## urherenow (Sunday at 1:06 PM)

All the bullshit about republicans either wanting to screw over medicare/social security, or not have a plan for it needs to stop.  Bottom line, either shit gets adjusted, or the coffers run dry. Republicans have been trying to prevent just that.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/oct/26/democrats-attack-republican-social-security-plans/


----------



## smf (Sunday at 2:22 PM)

nubman33 said:


> no one cares. all you do is spew out garbage that not a single person gives a shit about.
> 
> and why should he donate his salary? I don't see you donating yours at all. Also, fuck paying taxes. That bs shouldn't even exist.


He said he would donate it.



lolcatzuru said:


> doesnt maddow blame everything on trump?


How do you know trump isn't to blame for everything he's accused of?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sunday at 3:01 PM)

Xzi said:


> Well libertarians are essentially the original MAGA crowd, after all.  Anything bad that ever happens in the world must somehow be government's fault, including when there are consequences for corporations getting exactly what they asked for from the politicians they funded and helped elect.
> 
> "I choose business ethics."
> 
> ...


I don’t know what this has to do with ethics. If someone asked me if I want free money with no strings attached, the answer is always yes.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sunday at 9:18 PM)

Xzi said:


> Some are, some are not. What you're proposing is an end to the United States and dissolution into fifty small individual countries, a number of which would instantly have to be reclassified as third-world, as they're currently operating on a budget deficit.  As funny as it would be seeing conservatives unable to cope with their own "rugged survivalist" fantasies, a lot of innocent and apolitical individuals would also suffer and/or die during such a transition.


That's how the country was designed to work. What we have now is unsustainable and will not last.


Xzi said:


> You sure about that?  A lot of them seem to have trouble with that as things stand _now.  _The governors of Texas and Florida have been shipping buses of migrants to politicians' houses in blue states, FFS.


That's called sharing the burden. If blue states and cities can't afford illegal aliens, how are the poor red states supposed to deal with it? It's easy being a sanctuary state/city when your state/city don't have to deal with hundreds of thousands to millions of illegal aliens per year.


Xzi said:


> They really aren't.  People are pissed about inflation and a whole lot of them blame Biden for it, but an equal or greater amount of people are skeptical that Republicans have any real solutions to get it under control.  They've become a party of grievances without any policy platform, thus the underwhelming election results for them during midterms.


What we know for sure is that the Biden admin lied to us about inflation, calling it transitory when everybody on right was saying it is not. Same goes for illegal aliens. El Paso just had to clean up the area Biden is visiting so he doesn't have to look at all of those dirty brown people. Name one thing that has been done to fix inflation in the past 2 years.

The midterms was Mitch McConnell's fault. That's why Biden just went to go thank him the other day. I'm sure his payoff is in the mail as we speak.

	Post automatically merged: Sunday at 9:22 PM



smf said:


> He said he would donate it.
> 
> 
> How do you know trump isn't to blame for everything he's accused of?


Because nothing has happened to him after 6 years of multiple investigations. The corporate whore media assured us numerous times that the walls are closing in and this is the beginning of the end for dRumpf. Mueller was a dud, Avenatti is in prison, shampeachments went nowhere and all of the media's attacks have done absolutely nothing except gave Trump more votes in 2020 than he garnered in 2016 when the Russians were hacking our elections through Alfa Bank while he was getting pissed on by hookers in a Moscow hotel.

	Post automatically merged: Sunday at 9:27 PM



Jayro said:


> It's because they have nothing but complaints, with no solutions on how to fix things. Instead, they just try to push horrible shit that literally makes everything worse for regular Americans, like trying to gut Medicare and Social Security for example. They KNOW people need those things to survive, and they just don't give two shits. They don't value the lives of humans after they're born.


Hate to break it to you but we are still living under record inflation after 2 years, the supply line is still screwed up, World War III is trying to start in Ukraine and now Taiwan, energy prices are going up again, food prices are out of control, the border is wide open with the population of Houston crossing over last year alone, the Taliban has billions of military equipment and Saudi Arabia has been given immunity for the murder of Kashoggi.

How long do we need to wait before these fabled Democrat policies start working?

And what does your comment have anything to do with dRumpf's taxes? Is he going to jail yet for paying exactly what he was supposed to pay? Those walls that are closing in sure do move slowly.


----------



## Xzi (Sunday at 9:48 PM)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what this has to do with ethics. If someone asked me if I want free money with no strings attached, the answer is always yes.


Except everybody involved knew the money wasn't free, and that there were strings attached.  Feigning ignorance after the fact was not going to stop the torches and pitchforks from coming out.



TraderPatTX said:


> That's how the country was designed to work.


Show me one instance of a founding father suggesting we divide the land into fifty small countries.  It was never on the table.



TraderPatTX said:


> That's called sharing the burden.


No, it's called petty and childish.  If governors are wasting their taxpayers' money on such asinine stunts, there's zero chance they're competent enough to run their own countries.



TraderPatTX said:


> If blue states and cities can't afford illegal aliens, how are the poor red states supposed to deal with it?


They receive a high amount of compensation from the federal government for their migrant populations.  Make Texas its own country, and it would quickly be overtaken by Mexican drug cartels.  Not that that would necessarily cause a decline in quality of life down there from where it sits now.  



TraderPatTX said:


> What we know for sure is that the Biden admin lied to us about inflation, calling it transitory when everybody on right was saying it is not.


And yet inflation has tapered off over the last few months.  Even I was expecting an economic crash prior to that, but it didn't happen.



TraderPatTX said:


> The midterms was Mitch McConnell's fault.


That once again runs contrary to observable results.  Trump-endorsed candidates were absolutely obliterated during this last election cycle.  You give yourself no chance to win when you run candidates that are all flash and no substance, such as Dr. Oz.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Monday at 12:19 AM)

Xzi said:


> Except everybody involved knew the money wasn't free, and that there were strings attached.  Feigning ignorance after the fact was not going to stop the torches and pitchforks from coming out.


Reminds of of free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc.


Xzi said:


> Show me one instance of a founding father suggesting we divide the land into fifty small countries.  It was never on the table.


Show me one instance of a founding father suggesting the federal government pay for healthcare, education and roads.


Xzi said:


> No, it's called petty and childish.  If governors are wasting their taxpayers' money on such asinine stunts, there's zero chance they're competent enough to run their own countries.


What is the difference between governors shipping illegal aliens to blue states and the federal government shipping illegals to red states? Is Biden being petty too?


Xzi said:


> They receive a high amount of compensation from the federal government for their migrant populations.  Make Texas its own country, and it would quickly be overtaken by Mexican drug cartels.  Not that that would necessarily cause a decline in quality of life down there from where it sits now.


We are $30 trillion in debt. This money is being borrowed from the Federal Reserve which means rich people are getting richer at the expense of poor people. And you think this is a good thing?


Xzi said:


> And yet inflation has tapered off over the last few months.  Even I was expecting an economic crash prior to that, but it didn't happen.


Are you really going to claim victory with 7%+ inflation? Weird flex.


Xzi said:


> That once again runs contrary to observable results.  Trump-endorsed candidates were absolutely obliterated during this last election cycle.  You give yourself no chance to win when you run candidates that are all flash and no substance, such as Dr. Oz.


Trump has a 90% success rate for the midterms. That's the exact opposite of getting obliterated. Plus, the House is what was important this cycle. Trump only needed the Senate in 2018. And as we just witnessed, it only took 20 of Trump's picks to bring the House to a crawl.


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 12:57 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Reminds of of free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc.


Nobody expects that stuff for free, we expect our taxes to pay for it just like any other first-world nation.



TraderPatTX said:


> Show me one instance of a founding father suggesting the federal government pay for healthcare, education and roads.


That's been common sense from the outset.  You can't have a functional society without these things, and there's no other entity that's going to pay for them.



TraderPatTX said:


> What is the difference between governors shipping illegal aliens to blue states and the federal government shipping illegals to red states? Is Biden being petty too?


Most migrant processing centers are located in red states, and again, those states are compensated fairly for that fact.  That's in no way comparable to the political stunts orchestrated by DeSantis and Abbott.



TraderPatTX said:


> We are $30 trillion in debt.


Which has nothing to do with how we compensate red states for their migrant populations.  For that matter, migrant workers fill jobs which would otherwise remain unfilled, contributing positively to the economy.



TraderPatTX said:


> Are you really going to claim victory with 7%+ inflation? Weird flex.


It was you who claimed that Republicans were correct about inflation not being transitory, but if that was the case it would still be holding steady at 15%+.  They were wrong.



TraderPatTX said:


> Trump has a 90% success rate for the midterms.


I'd ask for a source but it's obvious you pulled this out of your ass.  The midterm results were the best for any incumbent party in 70 years.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Monday at 2:01 AM)

Xzi said:


> Nobody expects that stuff for free, we expect our taxes to pay for it just like any other first-world nation.


You can't say that when all we heard during the Obamacare debate was free healthcare. People always say that Medicaid is free healthcare.


Xzi said:


> That's been common sense from the outset.  You can't have a functional society without these things, and there's no other entity that's going to pay for them.


We had a functioning society before the federal government started paying for those things.


Xzi said:


> Most migrant processing centers are located in red states, and again, those states are compensated fairly for that fact.  That's in no way comparable to the political stunts orchestrated by DeSantis and Abbott.


So Biden flying illegal aliens to other red states not located at the border is a stunt also, correct?


Xzi said:


> Which has nothing to do with how we compensate red states for their migrant populations.  For that matter, migrant workers fill jobs which would otherwise remain unfilled, contributing positively to the economy.


That is not true.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missis...-immigrants-rather-than-hire-black-americans/

Illegal immigration hurts black people the most. The group Democrats are supposedly trying to help.


Xzi said:


> It was you who claimed that Republicans were correct about inflation not being transitory, but if that was the case it would still be holding steady at 15%+.  They were wrong.


Before Biden took office inflation was reported to be 2%. Let me know when it gets back down to that number. Biden doesn't get credit for raiding it 10 points and then lowering it 3 points. That's not success and if Trump was president right now, you'd be saying the same thing.


Xzi said:


> I'd ask for a source but it's obvious you pulled this out of your ass.  The midterm results were the best for any incumbent party in 70 years.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-general-election-endorsements-fared-midterms

So far, *Trump appears on track for a roughly 89% success rate* with his general election picks, having eked out *233 victories and 28 losses* with about seven races outstanding. This is based on the _Washington Examiner's_ tally of 268 endorsements.


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 3:23 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> You can't say that when all we heard during the Obamacare debate was free healthcare. People always say that Medicaid is free healthcare.


M4A is Bernie's proposed policy, not Obama's, and he's always been clear about where the funding would come from.  No sense in cherry picking quotes from laymen who don't understand how anything works, we could go back and forth with those for years.



TraderPatTX said:


> We had a functioning society before the federal government started paying for those things.


The US was founded before the invention of automobiles and the advent of modern medicine.  Yes, we had a functioning society in which people lived exponentially shorter/sicker lives and interstate travel was largely a pipe dream, but there's no going back to the 1800s.



TraderPatTX said:


> So Biden flying illegal aliens to other red states not located at the border is a stunt also, correct?


Stop with the gaslighting.  Immigration services operating as they always have is not a stunt.



TraderPatTX said:


> That is not true.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missis...-immigrants-rather-than-hire-black-americans/
> 
> Illegal immigration hurts black people the most. The group Democrats are supposedly trying to help.


This could not possibly be further off-topic from the general impact of migrant workers on the economy.  It's a single business deciding to be racist with their hiring practices, for which they will pay dearly.



TraderPatTX said:


> Before Biden took office inflation was reported to be 2%.


And?  There was always going to be inflation following a pandemic in which the whole nation temporarily shut down all non-vital businesses and services.  It's not something the president had any control over in this instance, especially a president elected to clean up a mess left by his predecessor.  Now, if you want to criticize Biden over leaving the federal minimum wage at $7.25, that's something we can get on the same page for.



TraderPatTX said:


> So far, *Trump appears on track for a roughly 89% success rate* with his general election picks, having eked out *233 victories and 28 losses* with about seven races outstanding. This is based on the _Washington Examiner's_ tally of 268 endorsements.


Oh I see where the disconnect is here: this is including incumbent candidates that were re-elected in safe red districts, which makes it all but meaningless.  Prior to the election, Republicans were expected to win far more House seats AND flip the Senate, making the results extremely underwhelming for them.  Watch any post-election interview with any politician and it's easy to get a sense of who felt like they really "won" the midterm.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Monday at 3:46 AM)

Xzi said:


> M4A is Bernie's proposed policy, not Obama's, and he's always been clear about where the funding would come from.  No sense in cherry picking quotes from laymen who don't understand how anything works, we could go back and forth with those for years.
> 
> 
> The US was founded before the invention of automobiles and the advent of modern medicine.  Yes, we had a functioning society in which people lived exponentially shorter/sicker lives and interstate travel was largely a pipe dream, but there's no going back to the 1800s.
> ...



*looks at arizona* man drugs are hell of a thing.


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 4:03 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> *looks at arizona* man drugs are hell of a thing.


Yeah, every time you see Kari Lake on TV it definitely looks like she's been doing the hard stuff.  Sinema too TBH.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Monday at 5:26 AM)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, every time you see Kari Lake on TV it definitely looks like she's been doing the hard stuff.  Sinema too TBH.



well first off, hugely sexist, weird one of your kind wouldnt realize that, but similarly, see this is what im talking about, you get scared way too much, you knew exactly the point i was making, which was irrefutable, and proceeded to avoid it because you were petrified yet again, do you like, live with medusa?


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 6:54 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> well first off, hugely sexist


Hey now, I support women's right to do hard drugs all they want.  They probably shouldn't be running for political office while addicted to them, though.



lolcatzuru said:


> you knew exactly the point i was making


I _never_ have any clue what point it is you're trying to make, I just have to take a wild guess.  Maybe stop leaving all your comments so intentionally vague?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Monday at 7:02 AM)

Xzi said:


> Hey now, I support women's right to do hard drugs all they want.  They probably shouldn't be running for political office while addicted to them, though.
> 
> 
> I _never_ have any clue what point it is you're trying to make, I just have to take a wild guess.  Maybe stop leaving all your comments so intentionally vague?



what part was vague? you mentioned midterms AND kari lake, you know exactly what i mean, lying is unbecoming, also, you never commented on the deal i offered you, I prove you are a liar about being in the US, you introduce me to the alter that made that claim.


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 7:54 AM)

lolcatzuru said:


> what part was vague?


The part where you danced around whatever point it was you were trying to make.  If you believe the election in Arizona was stolen, just say that, it's simple.  Of course then I'd have to accuse you of being on hard drugs, too.



lolcatzuru said:


> you never commented on the deal i offered you


I started scrolling past your posts after it began taking too much effort to decipher them.  What "deal?"  You want me to take a picture of my electrical outlets or something?  And why the hell would I lie about living in the US when there are so many other countries I'd rather live in anyway?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Monday at 3:07 PM)

Xzi said:


> M4A is Bernie's proposed policy, not Obama's, and he's always been clear about where the funding would come from.  No sense in cherry picking quotes from laymen who don't understand how anything works, we could go back and forth with those for years.


The laymen are the ones you have to persuade. Saying that any government service is free is intentional disinformation. For example, with Obamacare, I lost my healthcare plan and my doctor. That's disinformation and he still has social media accounts.


Xzi said:


> The US was founded before the invention of automobiles and the advent of modern medicine.  Yes, we had a functioning society in which people lived exponentially shorter/sicker lives and interstate travel was largely a pipe dream, but there's no going back to the 1800s.


We'll be back in the 1800s when the US defaults on this debt. It's just a matter of time.


Xzi said:


> Stop with the gaslighting.  Immigration services operating as they always have is not a stunt.


Is this a stunt?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/democrat-colorado-gov-defends-busing-migrants



Xzi said:


> This could not possibly be further off-topic from the general impact of migrant workers on the economy.  It's a single business deciding to be racist with their hiring practices, for which they will pay dearly.


If one company is doing it, you know they are not the only ones.


Xzi said:


> And?  There was always going to be inflation following a pandemic in which the whole nation temporarily shut down all non-vital businesses and services.  It's not something the president had any control over in this instance, especially a president elected to clean up a mess left by his predecessor.  Now, if you want to criticize Biden over leaving the federal minimum wage at $7.25, that's something we can get on the same page for.


If we are in pandemic, how come legal travelers are required to show a negative test but illegal aliens don't have that requirement? Weird.


Xzi said:


> Oh I see where the disconnect is here: this is including incumbent candidates that were re-elected in safe red districts, which makes it all but meaningless.  Prior to the election, Republicans were expected to win far more House seats AND flip the Senate, making the results extremely underwhelming for them.  Watch any post-election interview with any politician and it's easy to get a sense of who felt like they really "won" the midterm.


It didn't help that McConnell sabotaged certain senate campaigns and withheld funds from them.

	Post automatically merged: Monday at 3:11 PM



Xzi said:


> The part where you danced around whatever point it was you were trying to make.  If you believe the election in Arizona was stolen, just say that, it's simple.  Of course then I'd have to accuse you of being on hard drugs, too.


Well, 59% of machines in Maricopa County did go down on election day and the printer was intentionally changed to print 19 inch ballot images on 20 inch paper, which threw off the scanners. Not saying it is fraudulent, but it sure does bring up tons of questions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Monday at 3:47 PM)

Xzi said:


> Except everybody involved knew the money wasn't free, and that there were strings attached.  Feigning ignorance after the fact was not going to stop the torches and pitchforks from coming out.


I think we’ve explored this long enough to cover all bases. The entire point of the exchange was to explain the underlying cause behind the financial crisis, and I’ve done that. Whether you accept that explanation or not is up to you, but you would do well to be weary of any legislation built on a similar framework, as it will have the same end result. Somebody’s going to drink the milkshake, always - make sure they don’t drink yours.


----------



## Xzi (Monday at 10:00 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Saying that any government service is free is intentional disinformation.


Good thing that nobody's claimed that then, except for you.  People who live in countries with universal healthcare know it's not free, but they also don't need to worry about potentially going into debt for life over one single medical bill, so the tradeoff is always worth it.



TraderPatTX said:


> We'll be back in the 1800s when the US defaults on this debt. It's just a matter of time.


There are a thousand other doomsday scenarios which are far more likely to wipe out humanity before that becomes even the remotest of possibilities.



TraderPatTX said:


> Is this a stunt?
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/democrat-colorado-gov-defends-busing-migrants


Nope, was still cleared through all the proper channels, and they're being sent to facilities capable of processing them.  What don't you get about the fact that DeSantis and Abbott lied to immigrants about where they were going, and then sent them to RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS just to be dicks?  This incurred loads of unnecessary costs to remedy the situation.



TraderPatTX said:


> If one company is doing it, you know they are not the only ones.


Hiring practices based on racial discrimination are violations of federal and state law.  It's impossible to get away with it for any real length of time, so this isn't nearly as widespread as you're suggesting.



TraderPatTX said:


> If we are in pandemic, how come legal travelers are required to show a negative test but illegal aliens don't have that requirement? Weird.


We're not any more, the pandemic's been declared over.  Inflation was inevitable in the aftermath of it.



TraderPatTX said:


> It didn't help that McConnell sabotaged certain senate campaigns and withheld funds from them.


Well I do love watching a good round of infighting from the Republican party, so have at it.



TraderPatTX said:


> Well, 59% of machines in Maricopa County did go down on election day and the printer was intentionally changed to print 19 inch ballot images on 20 inch paper, which threw off the scanners. Not saying it is fraudulent, but it sure does bring up tons of questions.


If Lake had any concrete evidence, she would've presented it already.  Arizona judges were having none of it, as she had previously signaled her intent to reject the election results if she lost.  Her court challenges were quickly thrown out.



Foxi4 said:


> I think we’ve explored this long enough to cover all bases. The entire point of the exchange was to explain the underlying cause behind the financial crisis, and I’ve done that. Whether you accept that explanation or not is up to you, but you would do well to be weary of any legislation built on a similar framework, as it will have the same end result. Somebody’s going to drink the milkshake, always - make sure they don’t drink yours.


I'm not worried about it, those types of predatory loan schemes were outlawed during the Obama administration, and further regulations put on Wall Street to ensure toxic assets couldn't be bundled into otherwise seemingly innocuous packages.  Republicans and corporations have just had to find new ways to try to crash the economy and rob the American people blind post-2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2008_financial_crisis#Causes


----------



## TraderPatTX (Monday at 10:43 PM)

Xzi said:


> Good thing that nobody's claimed that then, except for you.  People who live in countries with universal healthcare know it's not free, but they also don't need to worry about potentially going into debt for life over one single medical bill, so the tradeoff is always worth it.


People talk about free healthcare the same as they talk about free education. You know this.


Xzi said:


> There are a thousand other doomsday scenarios which are far more likely to wipe out humanity before that becomes even the remotest of possibilities.


We are watching the collapse of the federal reserve banking system right now.


Xzi said:


> Nope, was still cleared through all the proper channels, and they're being sent to facilities capable of processing them.  What don't you get about the fact that DeSantis and Abbott lied to immigrants about where they were going, and then sent them to RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS just to be dicks?  This incurred loads of unnecessary costs to remedy the situation.


They were sent to sanctuary cities. It's not DeSantis' or Abbott's fault they were deported from Martha's Vineyard. Maybe they shouldn't lie about being sanctuary cities. That kind of disinformation could get people killed.


Xzi said:


> Hiring practices based on racial discrimination are violations of federal and state law.  It's impossible to get away with it for any real length of time, so this isn't nearly as widespread as you're suggesting.


Hiring practices based on illegal immigration status are violations of federal and state law. And it's been happening for decades.


Xzi said:


> We're not any more, the pandemic's been declared over.  Inflation was inevitable in the aftermath of it.


So they should have anticipated it and put in place policy to at least not make it as bad or last as long as it has.  Still a total failure Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants.


Xzi said:


> Well I do love watching a good round of infighting from the Republican party, so have at it.


It's always nice when the establishment shows their disdain for the people. Reminds me of when Hillary cheated Bernie in the 2016 primary. Bernie should have won.


Xzi said:


> If Lake had any concrete evidence, she would've presented it already.  Arizona judges were having none of it, as she had previously signaled her intent to reject the election results if she lost.  Her court challenges were quickly thrown out.


She did present concrete evidence. You just didn't watch the trial and it shows.


Xzi said:


> I'm not worried about it, those types of predatory loan schemes were outlawed during the Obama administration, and further regulations put on Wall Street to ensure toxic assets couldn't be bundled into otherwise seemingly innocuous packages.  Republicans and corporations have just had to find new ways to try to crash the economy and rob the American people blind post-2008.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2008_financial_crisis#Causes


They are still offering those predatory variable rate loans. Nothing was outlawed. It was all swept under the rug. I don't know how else to put this, but the uniparty will never go after their rich donors.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...r-jan-9-2023-major-rate-decreases/ar-AA168qYh


----------



## lolcatzuru (Tuesday at 12:13 AM)

Xzi said:


> The part where you danced around whatever point it was you were trying to make.  If you believe the election in Arizona was stolen, just say that, it's simple.  Of course then I'd have to accuse you of being on hard drugs, too.
> 
> 
> I started scrolling past your posts after it began taking too much effort to decipher them.  What "deal?"  You want me to take a picture of my electrical outlets or something?  And why the hell would I lie about living in the US when there are so many other countries I'd rather live in anyway?



well you can accuse me of whatever youd like, thank GOD you're thoughts are irelevant, but, more over, but as a proponent of sexism im sure you appreciate what went on there right, anything to stop the republican.


Xzi said:


> The part where you danced around whatever point it was you were trying to make.  If you believe the election in Arizona was stolen, just say that, it's simple.  Of course then I'd have to accuse you of being on hard drugs, too.
> 
> 
> I started scrolling past your posts after it began taking too much effort to decipher them.  What "deal?"  You want me to take a picture of my electrical outlets or something?  And why the hell would I lie about living in the US when there are so many other countries I'd rather live in anyway?



what do you mean what deal? you LITERALLY said in the next sentence what the deal was about, i get that pathologicaly lying coincides with mental illness man but come on, anyway once MORE ill reiterate the deal

I will go back and find " proof" that you claimed you werent from the US and you introduce me to the alter that made that claim.


----------



## Xzi (Tuesday at 12:25 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> People talk about free healthcare the same as they talk about free education. You know this.


"Many people are saying" is not a valid argument here any more than it is at Trump rallies.  As far as I can tell, you're the only one operating under such a misconception, and you're projecting it on to your political opposition.



TraderPatTX said:


> We are watching the collapse of the federal reserve banking system right now.


That would be pretty interesting to see, were it actually happening.



TraderPatTX said:


> They were sent to sanctuary cities. It's not DeSantis' or Abbott's fault they were deported from Martha's Vineyard.


It cannot possibly be anyone else's fault.  They set the destinations, knowing full well they were incapable of processing migrants at those locations.



TraderPatTX said:


> Hiring practices based on illegal immigration status are violations of federal and state law. And it's been happening for decades.


True, we need to crack down hard on corporations doing this from the top down, as well as provide more incentives for legal immigration.  They'll always seek out the cheapest labor possible otherwise, paying well under minimum wage and holding the threat of deportation over the heads of anyone who might report them.



TraderPatTX said:


> So they should have anticipated it and put in place policy to at least not make it as bad or last as long as it has. Still a total failure Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants.


There's no policy that would've prevented it, save a better and faster pandemic response by the previous administration.



TraderPatTX said:


> It's always nice when the establishment shows their disdain for the people. Reminds me of when Hillary cheated Bernie in the 2016 primary. Bernie should have won.


True, he should've won in 2020 as well.  Sadly Democrats put just as much effort into blocking progress from the left as they do into opposing Republicans.



TraderPatTX said:


> She did present concrete evidence.


Then the case wouldn't have been immediately dismissed, as it was being heard by a Republican judge who otherwise would've been sympathetic to her claims.



TraderPatTX said:


> They are still offering those predatory variable rate loans.


Payday loan scams are the new popular trend, but some states have already taken action to curb those.  As far as the housing market is concerned, we have to worry more about billionaires and foreign investors buying up all the single family homes to drastically raise the value of the few they don't.  Pricing millennials and younger completely out.

	Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 12:38 AM



lolcatzuru said:


> what do you mean what deal? you LITERALLY said in the next sentence what the deal was about


Lmao, so I guessed correctly?  No fucking clue why this is so important to you, but here ya go:


 

And a bonus pic of my physical games collection since outlets are not at all interesting (slightly out of date):



I've voted in every federal, state, and local election since I turned 18.  Much to your dismay, I'm sure.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Tuesday at 2:29 AM)

Xzi said:


> "Many people are saying" is not a valid argument here any more than it is at Trump rallies.  As far as I can tell, you're the only one operating under such a misconception, and you're projecting it on to your political opposition.


Feel free to play dumb on your time. Don't waste mine.


Xzi said:


> That would be pretty interesting to see, were it actually happening.


See my response above.


Xzi said:


> It cannot possibly be anyone else's fault.  They set the destinations, knowing full well they were incapable of processing migrants at those locations.


It's called drawing attention to a problem that has gotten too big for the border states to handle. When encounters go from 50k/month to almost 200k/month, somebody is doing a whole lot of failing that a simple photo op is not gonna fix.


Xzi said:


> True, we need to crack down hard on corporations doing this from the top down, as well as provide more incentives for legal immigration.  They'll always seek out the cheapest labor possible otherwise, paying well under minimum wage and holding the threat of deportation over the heads of anyone who might report them.


Raising the fees on legal immigrants to pay for illegal immigrants is not the incentive you think it is.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...n-to-cover-costs-processing-illegals-n1658525


Xzi said:


> There's no policy that would've prevented it, save a better and faster pandemic response by the previous administration.


A guaranteed preventative measure would be for the US government to not secretly pay for gain-of-function research. But you can't get your brain past dRumpf. Think bigger, man.


Xzi said:


> True, he should've won in 2020 as well.  Sadly Democrats put just as much effort into blocking progress from the left as they do into opposing Republicans.


Are you understanding the uniparty concept yet?


Xzi said:


> Then the case wouldn't have been immediately dismissed, as it was being heard by a Republican judge who otherwise would've been sympathetic to her claims.


Uniparty, bro. It's called a uniparty for a reason.


Xzi said:


> Payday loan scams are the new popular trend, but some states have already taken action to curb those.  As far as the housing market is concerned, we have to worry more about billionaires and foreign investors buying up all the single family homes to drastically raise the value of the few they don't.  Pricing millennials and younger completely out.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 12:38 AM


Don't forget Blackrock and Vanguard. I wonder who they donate to? Oh right, they donate to the uniparty.

https://news.yahoo.com/blackrock-spends-record-us-political-175839909.html


Xzi said:


> And a bonus pic of my physical games collection since outlets are not at all interesting (slightly out of date):
> 
> View attachment 346791
> 
> I've voted in every federal, state, and local election since I turned 18.  Much to your dismay, I'm sure.


Impressive game collection, btw. Looks like we have similar tastes.


----------



## Xzi (Tuesday at 2:55 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's called drawing attention to a problem that has gotten too big for the border states to handle.


Wasting unnecessary money and resources on political stunts doesn't help solve anything.  They created additional problems, nothing more.



TraderPatTX said:


> Raising the fees on legal immigrants to pay for illegal immigrants is not the incentive you think it is.


Well that wasn't something I suggested.



TraderPatTX said:


> A guaranteed preventative measure would be for the US government to not secretly pay for gain-of-function research.


Yes, surely funding _less_ research and being _less_ prepared for inevitable outbreaks would've solved everything.  /s



TraderPatTX said:


> Are you understanding the uniparty concept yet?


Your beef is with capitalism, you just haven't realized it yet.  Neither party is truly on the side of the working class, but we have only one party willing to actually do the work of governance, rather than spending all their time Gaslighting, Obstructing, and Projecting.



TraderPatTX said:


> Don't forget Blackrock and Vanguard.


Yeah they've got their filthy fingers in absolutely everything.  Should be targeted by antitrust laws, assuming we ever decide to start enforcing them again.



TraderPatTX said:


> Impressive game collection, btw. Looks like we have similar tastes.


Thanks.  This generation will probably be the last I bother with buying consoles, since physical copies are starting to go the way of the dodo.  I've got every Nintendo and Sony console minus Virtual Boy, Genesis and Dreamcast from Sega.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Tuesday at 4:38 PM)

Xzi said:


> Wasting unnecessary money and resources on political stunts doesn't help solve anything.  They created additional problems, nothing more.


The only problem is now people are aware of Biden's failures.


Xzi said:


> Well that wasn't something I suggested.


No but it is being done.


Xzi said:


> Yes, surely funding _less_ research and being _less_ prepared for inevitable outbreaks would've solved everything.  /s


Huge difference between funding research and funding the creation of bioweapons.


Xzi said:


> Your beef is with capitalism, you just haven't realized it yet.  Neither party is truly on the side of the working class, but we have only one party willing to actually do the work of governance, rather than spending all their time Gaslighting, Obstructing, and Projecting.


My beef is with the central banking system itself where only the bankers and the uniparty and their donors benefit. The result would be the same if we lived under socialism managed inside a central banking system like Venezuela.

Remember yesterday when I said the central banking system is in its death throes? Here is a sign.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/09/swi...ion-loss.html?&qsearchterm=swiss central bank


Xzi said:


> Yeah they've got their filthy fingers in absolutely everything.  Should be targeted by antitrust laws, assuming we ever decide to start enforcing them again.


I was hoping we could agree on this. Does this make 3 or 4 things we agree on now?


Xzi said:


> Thanks.  This generation will probably be the last I bother with buying consoles, since physical copies are starting to go the way of the dodo.  I've got every Nintendo and Sony console minus Virtual Boy, Genesis and Dreamcast from Sega.


I have such a huge backlog of games that I really don't need to buy anymore systems. Emulation will keep me busy probably for the rest of my life. I don't see a reason to play Final Fantasy XVI when I haven't even beaten VII through XV.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Tuesday at 6:02 PM)

@lolcatzuru @TraderPatTX Arguing with @Xzi is like talking to a brick wall. He's never wrong and will never admit he's wrong. It's a character flaw so I just try to avoid discussing anything with him because he's not right in the head. 

Now on topic, @Nothereed 's topic. So Trump's lawyers who do his taxes used tax law to reduce the amount of money Trump would have to pay. That's like, how it's supposed to work, has always worked and will continue to work. How many times now have the dumb ass liberals tried to nail Trump and got jack shit out of their efforts. I'd say they should focus on doing good in the world, but they'd probably fuck that up too. 

Oh well. This thread shouldn't exist. Trump didn't do anything wrong by having lawyers do and file his taxes.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Tuesday at 6:56 PM)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> @lolcatzuru @TraderPatTX Arguing with @Xzi is like talking to a brick wall. He's never wrong and will never admit he's wrong. It's a character flaw so I just try to avoid discussing anything with him because he's not right in the head.
> 
> Now on topic, @Nothereed 's topic. So Trump's lawyers who do his taxes used tax law to reduce the amount of money Trump would have to pay. That's like, how it's supposed to work, has always worked and will continue to work. How many times now have the dumb ass liberals tried to nail Trump and got jack shit out of their efforts. I'd say they should focus on doing good in the world, but they'd probably fuck that up too.
> 
> Oh well. This thread shouldn't exist. Trump didn't do anything wrong by having lawyers do and file his taxes.


I'd have to disagree. @Xzi and I have found lots of common ground and have kept this thread alive with zero personal attacks. Notice that no other leftist has interrupted the conversation, even the crazy OP hasn't stepped foot in his own thread in days.


----------



## SG854 (Tuesday at 7:13 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'd have to disagree. @Xzi and I have found lots of common ground and have kept this thread alive with zero personal attacks. Notice that no other leftist has interrupted the conversation, even the crazy OP hasn't stepped foot in his own thread in days.


Xzibit is polite

	Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 7:13 PM

Oh wow spell check


----------



## tabzer (Tuesday at 7:15 PM)

@Xzi vacuum your carpets, guy.   I know carpets are a pain in the ass, but thankfully, everyone on the planet has a choice on that matter.  Do you really hate freedom so much?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Tuesday at 7:49 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'd have to disagree. @Xzi and I have found lots of common ground and have kept this thread alive with zero personal attacks. Notice that no other leftist has interrupted the conversation, even the crazy OP hasn't stepped foot in his own thread in days.



Has he admitted he's wrong about any issues/statements/etc ... during your discussions?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Tuesday at 9:03 PM)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> @lolcatzuru @TraderPatTX Arguing with @Xzi is like talking to a brick wall. He's never wrong and will never admit he's wrong. It's a character flaw so I just try to avoid discussing anything with him because he's not right in the head.
> 
> Now on topic, @Nothereed 's topic. So Trump's lawyers who do his taxes used tax law to reduce the amount of money Trump would have to pay. That's like, how it's supposed to work, has always worked and will continue to work. How many times now have the dumb ass liberals tried to nail Trump and got jack shit out of their efforts. I'd say they should focus on doing good in the world, but they'd probably fuck that up too.
> 
> Oh well. This thread shouldn't exist. Trump didn't do anything wrong by having lawyers do and file his taxes.



oh i know, ive also had a behind closed doors talk with TC, trust me when i tell you they are very much the same, i wouldn't be surprised if they are alts, my goal is primarily to humiliate XYZ by catching him in one of his many, many lies and then watch him try to weasel out of it.


----------



## Xzi (Tuesday at 10:54 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> The only problem is now people are aware of Biden's failures.


The number of illegal border crossings has remained mostly steady for a long time now.  It's not at all an all-caps "CRISIS" like sensationalist right-wing media makes it out to be.  They always need to drum up some big faux emergency to keep cable news from dying out entirely.  Migrant workers aren't responsible for keeping our wages suppressed and our infrastructure trapped in the 1980s, that would be billionaires and corporations.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffett



TraderPatTX said:


> No but it is being done.


Well I don't think it's a smart tactic, and it is probably a favor to Biden's corporate donors.



TraderPatTX said:


> Huge difference between funding research and funding the creation of bioweapons.


Huge difference between fact and conspiracy theory as well.  This won't be the last pandemic in our lifetimes, as permafrost melting is going to reveal some really nasty blasts from the past.  The vaccine research being done now can help to not only lessen the impact of those, but also potentially eliminate cancer, AIDS, etc.



TraderPatTX said:


> My beef is with the central banking system itself where only the bankers and the uniparty and their donors benefit.


We're on the same page as far as believing the Federal Reserve never should've been established goes.  Kennedy was set to block it after returning from Texas, which may well be the reason he never did.



TraderPatTX said:


> I have such a huge backlog of games that I really don't need to buy anymore systems.


Same, plus everything gets ported to PC now anyway.



tabzer said:


> @Xzi vacuum your carpets, guy.   I know carpets are a pain in the ass, but thankfully, everyone on the planet has a choice on that matter.


Hard to vacuum where my cable jungle sits, being that I have two monitors, a TV, soundbar and subwoofer, my PC, Steam Deck, and five consoles all hooked up right now.  It's really old carpet that needs to be replaced at some point soon anyway.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Tuesday at 11:34 PM)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Has he admitted he's wrong about any issues/statements/etc ... during your discussions?


I'm just trying to find common ground. I don't like admitting when I'm wrong. Mainly because it rarely happens, lol


----------



## IncredulousP (Tuesday at 11:45 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> I don't like admitting when I'm wrong. Mainly because it rarely happens, lol


If you were truly as intellectual as you claim, you would be proud to admit when you're wrong.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Tuesday at 11:46 PM)

Xzi said:


> The number of illegal border crossings has remained mostly steady for a long time now.  It's not at all an all-caps "CRISIS" like sensationalist right-wing media makes it out to be.  They always need to drum up some big faux emergency to keep cable news from dying out entirely.  Migrant workers aren't responsible for keeping our wages suppressed and our infrastructure trapped in the 1980s, that would be billionaires and corporations.


250,000 illegal aliens a month is an all-caps CRISIS, especially for border towns with a population of 2,000. But New York freaks out when they receive a couple hundred. 


Xzi said:


> Huge difference between fact and conspiracy theory as well.  This won't be the last pandemic in our lifetimes, as permafrost melting is going to reveal some really nasty blasts from the past.  The vaccine research being done now can help to not only lessen the impact of those, but also potentially eliminate cancer, AIDS, etc.


I'm actually running out of conspiracy theories because all of mine are coming true and we already have cures for cancer and AIDS. Do you think Big Pharma's goal is to cure us or to make us permanent customers? For somebody who distrusts and outright hates corporations, you seem to have soft spot for Big Pharma even though Pfizer has paid the largest fine in human history for falsifying clinical studies and paying doctors off. I wouldn't trust them to make aspirin. And now it's come out that Scott Gottlieb was getting people banned from social media for saying that natural immunity was better than the jab. I guess $81 billion in profits in 2021 just wasn't enough for them.


Xzi said:


> We're on the same page as far as believing the Federal Reserve never should've been established goes.  Kennedy was set to block it after returning from Texas, which may well be the reason he never did.


This agreeableness is becoming very habit forming. Maybe we should stop. I think we're scaring everybody else. lol

People gonna think we're friends before long.

	Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 11:47 PM



IncredulousP said:


> If you were truly as intellectual as you claim, you would be proud to admit when you're wrong.


Calm down Frances. The lol at the end signifies it was a joke.


----------



## Xzi (Wednesday at 3:13 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> 250,000 illegal aliens a month is an all-caps CRISIS


It might be if we hadn't just lost well over a million people to COVID, but as things sit now a lot of industries are still facing worker shortages.



TraderPatTX said:


> Do you think Big Pharma's goal is to cure us or to make us permanent customers?


This isn't about big pharma, they fund their own research.  It's about independent scientific studies, which would not exist with government grants.



TraderPatTX said:


> This agreeableness is becoming very habit forming. Maybe we should stop. I think we're scaring everybody else. lol


Well you have been surprisingly reasonable lately, which makes me wonder if you realize that a lot of the opinions you're voicing would get you kicked out of a Trump rally in a heartbeat.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Wednesday at 1:19 PM)

Xzi said:


> It might be if we hadn't just lost well over a million people to COVID, but as things sit now a lot of industries are still facing worker shortages.


Except we didn't have any excess deaths. The death rate during the Covid years was in line with modeling.


Xzi said:


> This isn't about big pharma, they fund their own research.  It's about independent scientific studies, which would not exist with government grants.


You should look into what the government funds. We just recently learned that we have been funding bioweapons research. What else are we about to learn that our government has been doing in secret?


Xzi said:


> Well you have been surprisingly reasonable lately, which makes me wonder if you realize that a lot of the opinions you're voicing would get you kicked out of a Trump rally in a heartbeat.


It's amazing how reasonable one can be when they are not being called a fascist, racist, transphobe nazi on every thread. 

There are a wide variety of views at a Trump rally. I've been to a couple. You'd be surprised that a lot of people at a Trump rally are Democrats, especially down here in deep blue south Florida.


----------



## Hanafuda (Wednesday at 2:45 PM)

Xzi said:


> The number of illegal border crossings has remained mostly steady for a long time now. It's not at all an all-caps "CRISIS" like sensationalist right-wing media makes it out to be.


----------



## Xzi (Wednesday at 9:50 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Except we didn't have any excess deaths. The death rate during the Covid years was in line with modeling.


Modeling?  Pretty sure we weren't expecting any deaths from a pandemic at all in the summer of 2019, else we would've been better prepared to prevent them.



TraderPatTX said:


> You should look into what the government funds. We just recently learned that we have been funding bioweapons research.


You can probably find evidence of the military funding bioweapons research all the way back to the 1900s.  That doesn't change the fact that the government also funds important medical research.



TraderPatTX said:


> There are a wide variety of views at a Trump rally.


Pressing X to doubt.  There's a reason he continues to employ the Southern Strategy, and it's not because he's trying to turn Republicans into the big tent party.



Hanafuda said:


> View attachment 346982


Seems pretty well in line with a bump in immigration every twenty years or so, eh?  Maybe the CIA should stop fucking with South America's stability so often.


----------



## Hanafuda (Wednesday at 10:42 PM)

Xzi said:


> Seems pretty well in line with a bump in immigration every twenty years or so, eh?  Maybe the CIA should stop fucking with South America's stability so often.



No it seems pretty consistent with illegal immigration steadily declining thoughout 2000-2010, then holding at 1970s level from 2010-2020, then spiking 5-6x higher since Biden came in office. Basically in just one year. No numbers for 2022 as whole yet, but they're coming soon.

You claimed "steady for a long time now," and now you're trying to make like you suggested there's a "bump" every 20 years or so. There's no pattern where it's only happened one time. And it's not a bump when it's a cliff edge rocket shoot to the worst its ever been.


----------



## Xzi (Wednesday at 11:39 PM)

Hanafuda said:


> You claimed "steady for a long time now," and now you're trying to make like you suggested there's a "bump" every 20 years or so. There's no pattern where it's only happened one time.


I was wrong, but this is the third time since the 1980s according to your chart.  The numbers would also carry more significance if either party was willing to follow through on the obvious solution, namely a path to citizenship for those who migrate legally or claim asylum, but instead we keep the system as-is to benefit corporate interests.  As I've stated previously, Republicans have become nothing but a party of grievances without any actual policy platforms.  Immigration is exclusively used as a ragebait topic for right-wing media.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Thursday at 1:29 PM)

Xzi said:


> Modeling?  Pretty sure we weren't expecting any deaths from a pandemic at all in the summer of 2019, else we would've been better prepared to prevent them.


It means, the number of deaths were around the number that was predicted before the pandemic hit. Now we have an exorbitant number of people dying suddenly with no cause.


Xzi said:


> You can probably find evidence of the military funding bioweapons research all the way back to the 1900s.  That doesn't change the fact that the government also funds important medical research.


Of course they fund important research. If everything they did was bad or against the law, we would find out about it. That's like saying the corporate media is trustworthy because they sprinkle in a little truth here and there. Judging by their ratings and subscriber count, that dog ain't huntin' no more.


Xzi said:


> Pressing X to doubt.  There's a reason he continues to employ the Southern Strategy, and it's not because he's trying to turn Republicans into the big tent party.


It wasn't just happening in the south. Unless of course, you can provide some numbers to prove dRumpf was employing a Southern Strategy.


Xzi said:


> Seems pretty well in line with a bump in immigration every twenty years or so, eh?  Maybe the CIA should stop fucking with South America's stability so often.


I agree with President Kennedy when he said he wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces because South America is not the only place they operate (think Ukraine) and destabilizing governments is not even close to the worst of their crimes.

Just a quick question. When do all of Biden's properties get raided by the FBI since his lawyers and staff do not have the security clearance to look at top secret documents? Where is the special prosecutor? Are we witnessing a two-tiered justice system? Also pretty weird that we just found out about this and Garland assigned a special prosecutor to dRumpf after he was aware of these documents. Garland is such a good wingman.

	Post automatically merged: Thursday at 1:34 PM



Xzi said:


> I was wrong, but this is the third time since the 1980s according to your chart.  The numbers would also carry more significance if either party was willing to follow through on the obvious solution, namely a path to citizenship for those who migrate legally or claim asylum, but instead we keep the system as-is to benefit corporate interests.


There is a path to citizenship. It's called legal immigration. And people can only claim asylum at ports of entry, not wherever they get caught and picked up.


Xzi said:


> As I've stated previously, Republicans have become nothing but a party of grievances without any actual policy platforms.  Immigration is exclusively used as a ragebait topic for right-wing media.


Judging from that graph, the policies put in place from 2017-2020 worked pretty well. Then when those policies were eliminated, we see a giant spike.

I wish people on the left would realize that an open border is racist and sexist. An open border only enriches US corporations and the Mexican cartels. The amount of fentanyl crossing the border is enough to kill everybody in the US 3 times over. Even more serious is all of the human trafficking (including kids) that Biden is enabling. But Democrats choose to ignore the problem or cover it up like they just did in El Paso.


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 10:31 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> It means, the number of deaths were around the number that was predicted before the pandemic hit.


My point is that nobody predicted COVID-19 in the first place, there's no way we were expecting 500k excess deaths in a single year.  For that matter, the Trump administration even disbanded a federal pandemic response team in 2017, simply because the Obama administration had been the one to establish it.  Who knows how many of those deaths could've been prevented otherwise.



TraderPatTX said:


> Of course they fund important research. If everything they did was bad or against the law, we would find out about it.


A lot of it is bad and/or against the law, and we don't find out about it until decades later because it's top secret military business.  I've already voiced my support for cutting into the military budget to fund other things, beyond that I don't know what other solution you might propose aside from revolution.



TraderPatTX said:


> It wasn't just happening in the south. Unless of course, you can provide some numbers to prove dRumpf was employing a Southern Strategy.


The Southern Strategy is more or less just a series of racist dogwhistles.  Except Trump isn't nearly subtle enough for that, so he uses a bullhorn instead.



TraderPatTX said:


> I agree with President Kennedy when he said he wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces because South America is not the only place they operate (think Ukraine) and destabilizing governments is not even close to the worst of their crimes.


Huh?  If anything, Ukraine and its government have become more stable over the last several years, which is what the US needed to happen in order to gain a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe.  But yeah, the CIA seems to do a lot of unjustifiable shit, especially where democratically-elected socialist leaders are concerned.



TraderPatTX said:


> Just a quick question. When do all of Biden's properties get raided by the FBI since his lawyers and staff do not have the security clearance to look at top secret documents? Where is the special prosecutor? Are we witnessing a two-tiered justice system? Also pretty weird that we just found out about this and Garland assigned a special prosecutor to dRumpf after he was aware of these documents. Garland is such a good wingman.


A special counsel was appointed to investigate Biden's classified documents as of yesterday.  The big difference being that Biden's staff turned over all documents the second they were discovered, where Trump tried to keep documents hidden and even ordered his lawyers to lie about having turned them all over.  I have no issue with both cases being investigated thoroughly, of course.

When I refer to a two-tiered justice system I'm talking about rich vs working class, however, not Ds vs Rs.



TraderPatTX said:


> There is a path to citizenship. It's called legal immigration.


Waiting years or even decades to migrate is not a realistic option for most, only for those that are already well off.  The current system is a massive deterrent to legal immigration, very much by design.



TraderPatTX said:


> And people can only claim asylum at ports of entry, not wherever they get caught and picked up.


Sure.  For a time even that was criminalized, however.



TraderPatTX said:


> Judging from that graph, the policies put in place from 2017-2020 worked pretty well. Then when those policies were eliminated, we see a giant spike.


Seems more like a post-COVID surge, being that the numbers were also pretty low during both of Obama's terms.



TraderPatTX said:


> I wish people on the left would realize that an open border is racist and sexist. An open border only enriches US corporations and the Mexican cartels. The amount of fentanyl crossing the border is enough to kill everybody in the US 3 times over.


Neither party is for an "open borders policy," but both parties are in favor of enriching corporations, which is how we got to where we're at now with a broken system.  Illegal immigration is never going to stop, or even really slow down, so long as there are companies willing to hire and pay under the table.

Fentanyl is a problem, yes, but drugs won the war on drugs in America, so it's gonna make its way here one way or another regardless.  Whether that be from the Northern border, by boat or by plane.  Best defense against it is to just not do the hard stuff kids, stick to weed.



TraderPatTX said:


> Even more serious is all of the human trafficking (including kids) that Biden is enabling.


Give me a break, nobody is in favor of human trafficking.  Well, except for maybe the incels who think Andrew Tate did nothing wrong.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Yesterday at 2:01 PM)

Xzi said:


> My point is that nobody predicted COVID-19 in the first place, there's no way we were expecting 500k excess deaths in a single year.  For that matter, the Trump administration even disbanded a federal pandemic response team in 2017, simply because the Obama administration had been the one to establish it.  Who knows how many of those deaths could've been prevented otherwise.


You don't understand what excess deaths are. Excess deaths are if those people would be alive today, which for most of them, they wouldn't because they were in nursing homes and very old.


Xzi said:


> A lot of it is bad and/or against the law, and we don't find out about it until decades later because it's top secret military business.  I've already voiced my support for cutting into the military budget to fund other things, beyond that I don't know what other solution you might propose aside from revolution.


The first step is admitting that our government does a lot of illegal shit and to stop making excuses for them. Both sides do this.


Xzi said:


> The Southern Strategy is more or less just a series of racist dogwhistles.  Except Trump isn't nearly subtle enough for that, so he uses a bullhorn instead.


It's so weird that during his presidency, blacks enjoyed higher wages and lower unemployment. He targeted their neighborhoods (opportunity zones) that actually improved their lives. Democrats just talk about helping black people while making their lives worse.


Xzi said:


> Huh?  If anything, Ukraine and its government have become more stable over the last several years, which is what the US needed to happen in order to gain a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe.  But yeah, the CIA seems to do a lot of unjustifiable shit, especially where democratically-elected socialist leaders are concerned.


It was stable before the coup of 2014. It's just that our government didn't like the Ukraine president being buddies with Russia, so they took him out and his attorney general.


Xzi said:


> A special counsel was appointed to investigate Biden's classified documents as of yesterday.  The big difference being that Biden's staff turned over all documents the second they were discovered, where Trump tried to keep documents hidden and even ordered his lawyers to lie about having turned them all over.  I have no issue with both cases being investigated thoroughly, of course.


You sound like MSNBC. Does Biden's staff have security clearances? Do his lawyers have security clearances? And who pays their attorneys $600/hour to pack up boxes? Nothing makes sense and the media refuses to ask hard questions. Not to mention those documents were moved twice. Once when Biden left the White House and again in 2018 where they were sent to his garage. Biden is not protected by the Presidential Records Act. He could not declass a single word. Why would he have them to begin with? Once again, why doesn't the media ask these simple questions?


Xzi said:


> When I refer to a two-tiered justice system I'm talking about rich vs working class, however, not Ds vs Rs.


When I refer to a two-tiered justice system, I'm talking about the uniparty vs everybody else. Look at the difference of how the FBI treats Trump vs Biden. One had their properties raided, the other is allowed to go look for documents by people who lack security clearances.


Xzi said:


> Waiting years or even decades to migrate is not a realistic option for most, only for those that are already well off.  The current system is a massive deterrent to legal immigration, very much by design.


I agree, but the uniparty is not about solving problems. They campaign on solving problems, then once in office, they create other problems to distract from their campaign promises.


Xzi said:


> Sure.  For a time even that was criminalized, however.


Because you can't just walk into a country. Name a single country you can just walk into and claim to be a citizen? You won't be able to because none exists. Why should we be different from everybody else? Why should Europe be different from everybody else? Because diversity? You know what countries lack diversity? Japan. Republic of Congo. Jordan. Bolivia. Weird how countries with brown people are not required to be diverse. Kinda makes you wonder.


Xzi said:


> Seems more like a post-COVID surge, being that the numbers were also pretty low during both of Obama's terms.


Seems or is? You don't seem too sure about your conclusion.


Xzi said:


> Neither party is for an "open borders policy," but both parties are in favor of enriching corporations, which is how we got to where we're at now with a broken system.  Illegal immigration is never going to stop, or even really slow down, so long as there are companies willing to hire and pay under the table.


Can't enrich the Chamber of Commerce without open borders. All we have to do is pass a national E-Verify system and fine companies $500,000 per illegal alien hired. And then go make an example of a large corporation like Tyson Farms.


Xzi said:


> Fentanyl is a problem, yes, but drugs won the war on drugs in America, so it's gonna make its way here one way or another regardless.  Whether that be from the Northern border, by boat or by plane.  Best defense against it is to just not do the hard stuff kids, stick to weed.


So we should just give up and do nothing? Do you hate people that much?


Xzi said:


> Give me a break, nobody is in favor of human trafficking.  Well, except for maybe the incels who think Andrew Tate did nothing wrong.


The uniparty is. How else can both Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell both be convicted of sex trafficking to no clients? Those clients are protected because many in the uniparty were clients. If an English prince was a client, who else do you think was blackmailed?


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 11:05 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> You don't understand what excess deaths are. Excess deaths are if those people would be alive today, which for most of them, they wouldn't because they were in nursing homes and very old.


Even most "very old" people would've had 5+ years to live still without COVID.  And since obesity was also a major co-morbidity, that took out a lot of younger people too.



TraderPatTX said:


> The first step is admitting that our government does a lot of illegal shit and to stop making excuses for them. Both sides do this.


I never said it didn't, but it'll also never correct course if we criticize all the things it does right with just as much fervor as we do for the things it does wrong.



TraderPatTX said:


> It's so weird that during his presidency, blacks enjoyed higher wages and lower unemployment. He targeted their neighborhoods (opportunity zones) that actually improved their lives.


If you took a poll, I very much doubt most would agree with that assessment.  For that matter you could just look at how many black people voted for him in 2020.  Trump's economic policies were beneficial exclusively to the rich.



TraderPatTX said:


> It was stable before the coup of 2014.


Ukraine's government was corrupt as hell before Zelenskyy was voted in, much like the Kremlin.  There was no evidence of a "coup," people really need to stop using that word every time an election results in an outcome they dislike.



TraderPatTX said:


> Does Biden's staff have security clearances? Do his lawyers have security clearances? And who pays their attorneys $600/hour to pack up boxes? Nothing makes sense and the media refuses to ask hard questions. Not to mention those documents were moved twice. Once when Biden left the White House and again in 2018 where they were sent to his garage. Biden is not protected by the Presidential Records Act. He could not declass a single word. Why would he have them to begin with? Once again, why doesn't the media ask these simple questions?


That's...the entire point of appointing a special counsel to investigate.  We have no idea who moved the documents in the first place, or what their intent was, let alone the level of security classification of each document.  The most likely explanation is that they were simply forgotten about, as unlike Trump's documents, there was nothing missing, and an FBI raid was not required to retrieve them.  If it turns out that both Trump and Biden committed criminal acts, great, charge 'em both.  Two wrongs don't make a right, it's not a get out of jail free card as a lot of Republicans want to pretend it is.



TraderPatTX said:


> When I refer to a two-tiered justice system, I'm talking about the uniparty vs everybody else. Look at the difference of how the FBI treats Trump vs Biden. One had their properties raided, the other is allowed to go look for documents by people who lack security clearances.


That makes no sense.  Trump would very much be part of this "uniparty" you speak of.  He was president FFS, he can no longer claim he exists outside of the political establishment.  All he had to do was turn over the documents he had when the request was made, instead of lying about it.  There was never any request made for Biden's documents because nobody knew he had them, Biden himself included most likely.



TraderPatTX said:


> Because you can't just walk into a country.


You literally just said that claiming asylum at the border is legal, and despite the Trump administration's attempts to criminalize it, it is.



TraderPatTX said:


> Name a single country you can just walk into and claim to be a citizen?


That's not what a path to citizenship is.  It means you can enter the country immediately as long as you're documented, and then over years of work, paying taxes, and staying out of legal trouble, you're eventually awarded citizenship.



TraderPatTX said:


> Seems or is? You don't seem too sure about your conclusion.


Correlation does not equal causation, so neither of us can be 100% certain about the conclusions we're drawing from one chart.  That is what the numbers imply, however.



TraderPatTX said:


> All we have to do is pass a national E-Verify system and fine companies $500,000 per illegal alien hired. And then go make an example of a large corporation like Tyson Farms.


That would be nice.  Problem being that we're still sometimes electing candidates who themselves hire undocumented workers, so there's no incentive for them to change anything.



TraderPatTX said:


> So we should just give up and do nothing? Do you hate people that much?


I mean we have the DEA and local/state police to try to track down fentanyl distribution rings, dunno what else you expect us to do aside from going full authoritarian big brother like the CCP.  People who want drugs badly enough will always find a way to get them, and hard drugs have always been associated with a much larger risk than the recreational stuff.  It comes down to personal responsibility.



TraderPatTX said:


> The uniparty is. How else can both Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell both be convicted of sex trafficking to no clients? Those clients are protected because many in the uniparty were clients. If an English prince was a client, who else do you think was blackmailed?


Much like the Panama papers being forgotten, that's more an issue of class warfare than anything else.  For every politician who visited Epstein's island, there were at least two wealthy/powerful non-politicians who did as well.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Today at 1:31 AM)

Xzi said:


> Even most "very old" people would've had 5+ years to live still without COVID.  And since obesity was also a major co-morbidity, that took out a lot of younger people too.


Actually, I was mistaken when I said there were no excess deaths in 2021 and 2022. There were... however they are not attributed to Covid19. They are attributed to sudden death syndrome also known as unexplained death also known as a coincidence. The causes of these deaths have been attributed to climate change and gas stoves.


Xzi said:


> I never said it didn't, but it'll also never correct course if we criticize all the things it does right with just as much fervor as we do for the things it does wrong.


When the things it does wrong leads to the deaths of millions, it doesn't really matter how much good it has done. Nazi scientists made many medical discoveries, but it doesn't matter because of all the horrible things they did. And certain factions of the US government has killed more people than they did back in the 30's and 40's.


Xzi said:


> If you took a poll, I very much doubt most would agree with that assessment.  For that matter you could just look at how many black people voted for him in 2020.  Trump's economic policies were beneficial exclusively to the rich.


It doesn't matter how much you doubt. Trump got more black votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. Even the horrible NYTimes were forced to admit that the tax cuts benefitted everybody.


Xzi said:


> Ukraine's government was corrupt as hell before Zelenskyy was voted in, much like the Kremlin.  There was no evidence of a "coup," people really need to stop using that word every time an election results in an outcome they dislike.


The Maidan Revolution was instigated by the CIA and led to civil war in Ukraine until 2022. Ukraine would bomb the eastern part of the country relentlessly and send in the nazi Azov battalian to brutally murder people. Nobody cared about these deaths until the media told everybody to care.


Xzi said:


> That's...the entire point of appointing a special counsel to investigate.


Another reason to appoint a special counsel is to block congressional investigations.


Xzi said:


> We have no idea who moved the documents in the first place, or what their intent was, let alone the level of security classification of each document.


Intent is irrelevant. 


Xzi said:


> The most likely explanation is that they were simply forgotten about, as unlike Trump's documents, there was nothing missing, and an FBI raid was not required to retrieve them.


All classified documents must be checked out. A record is kept who checked them out and when. You are also making excuses because your guy was storing classified documents at Hunter's house with no security. At least Trump has the Secret Service in Mar-a-Lago.


Xzi said:


> If it turns out that both Trump and Biden committed criminal acts, great, charge 'em both.  Two wrongs don't make a right, it's not a get out of jail free card as a lot of Republicans want to pretend it is.


Different laws cover each scenario. Trump is covered under the Presidential Records Act. Biden was vice president at the time and had zero authorization to declass anything.


Xzi said:


> That makes no sense.  Trump would very much be part of this "uniparty" you speak of.  He was president FFS, he can no longer claim he exists outside of the political establishment.


Then why do both parties attack him? Did you ever wonder that? Why were Republicans like McConnell, Cheney, Romney and others attacking him more than the Democrats?


Xzi said:


> All he had to do was turn over the documents he had when the request was made, instead of lying about it.


He did.


Xzi said:


> There was never any request made for Biden's documents because nobody knew he had them, Biden himself included most likely.


Biden's documents were found before the election. Now they have found more. If the government is losing classified documents, then NARA needs to be investigated and/or disbanded.


Xzi said:


> You literally just said that claiming asylum at the border is legal, and despite the Trump administration's attempts to criminalize it, it is.


It's legal at the ports of entry. Not in the Rio Grande.


Xzi said:


> That's not what a path to citizenship is.  It means you can enter the country immediately as long as you're documented, and then over years of work, paying taxes, and staying out of legal trouble, you're eventually awarded citizenship.


These people swimming across the river are not documented and they are not claiming asylum at a port of entry. Hence, they are breaking our laws. Thank you for finally understanding.


Xzi said:


> Correlation does not equal causation, so neither of us can be 100% certain about the conclusions we're drawing from one chart.  That is what the numbers imply, however.


I'm sure about my conclusion. You're the one who seems a little iffy.


Xzi said:


> That would be nice.  Problem being that we're still sometimes electing candidates who themselves hire undocumented workers, so there's no incentive for them to change anything.


Then the states need to step up. We can't watch unlawful acts keep going unpunished and just throw our hands up and call it quits.


Xzi said:


> I mean we have the DEA and local/state police to try to track down fentanyl distribution rings, dunno what else you expect us to do aside from going full authoritarian big brother like the CCP.  People who want drugs badly enough will always find a way to get them, and hard drugs have always been associated with a much larger risk than the recreational stuff.  It comes down to personal responsibility.


Maybe go back to Trump's policies when things at the border was better?


Xzi said:


> Much like the Panama papers being forgotten, that's more an issue of class warfare than anything else.  For every politician who visited Epstein's island, there were at least two wealthy/powerful non-politicians who did as well.


I can't help that people forget things and are unable to use the internet to look things up. But yes, many wealthy/powerful people went to the island, his NYC mansion and his New Mexico ranch. I'd bet most of Hollywood are involved. And we know Bill Gates had a relationship with him after Epstein was convicted in 2008. And yet, people still did as he told them to do over the last couple of years. Smh


----------



## Xzi (Today at 2:05 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually, I was mistaken when I said there were no excess deaths in 2021 and 2022. There were... however they are not attributed to Covid19. They are attributed to sudden death syndrome also known as unexplained death also known as a coincidence. The causes of these deaths have been attributed to climate change and gas stoves.


It's all really beside the point that migrant workers often fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.  You could argue companies would get more applicants if they paid and treated their workers better, and I wouldn't disagree, but sadly a number of industries are far too reliant on cheap (less than minimum wage) labor.



TraderPatTX said:


> When the things it does wrong leads to the deaths of millions, it doesn't really matter how much good it has done.


"Government = bad in all circumstances" is just an intellectually lazy take though, not to mention untrue.  What we need is far more than two political parties so that people can no longer make the claim that they aren't truly represented by any of the candidates.



TraderPatTX said:


> Trump got more black votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. Even the horrible NYTimes were forced to admit that the tax cuts benefitted everybody.


8% versus 6% in 2016.  You'd expect a much bigger bump than that if black voters thought Trump's policies were truly beneficial to them.  And Trump's tax cuts are only permanent for the rich, the rest of us will see our taxes increased every couple years until they end up higher than they were before.



TraderPatTX said:


> The Maidan Revolution was instigated by the CIA and led to civil war in Ukraine until 2022. Ukraine would bomb the eastern part of the country relentlessly and send in the nazi Azov battalian to brutally murder people. Nobody cared about these deaths until the media told everybody to care.


It's much more likely it was instigated by the Kremlin, as they'd be the only ones with something to gain from destabilization prior to a planned invasion.



TraderPatTX said:


> Another reason to appoint a special counsel is to block congressional investigations.


Congressional investigations are toothless compared to a special counsel who can actually bring criminal charges against a guilty party.



TraderPatTX said:


> Different laws cover each scenario. Trump is covered under the Presidential Records Act. Biden was vice president at the time and had zero authorization to declass anything.


None of the documents were declassified prior to being removed.  The act of simply moving the documents itself also wasn't illegal, and there'd be no controversy at all had both men returned them to where they belong before leaving office.



TraderPatTX said:


> These people swimming across the river are not documented and they are not claiming asylum at a port of entry. Hence, they are breaking our laws. Thank you for finally understanding.


Which is, again, what they're incentivized to do with the current broken immigration system in place.  A path to citizenship with no wait time to cross the border would incentivize legal immigration instead.  Sadly it seems Biden is no more inclined to implement an actual fix than Trump was, but at least he's not creating additional problems by separating families at the border.



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm sure about my conclusion.


Which just makes you confident in your ignorance, not objectively correct.  Again, correlation =/= causation.



TraderPatTX said:


> Then the states need to step up. We can't watch unlawful acts keep going unpunished and just throw our hands up and call it quits.


There are more steps we could take to ensure public safety, certainly.  Decriminalizing all drugs and opening up as many safe use/testing centers as possible has worked wonders for other countries.  Definitely not something the alcohol and private prison industries would be on board with, however.



TraderPatTX said:


> Maybe go back to Trump's policies when things at the border was better?


Made no difference in the amount of fentanyl coming into the US.  Once again, the Southern border is hardly the only point of entry for drugs.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Today at 2:59 AM)

Xzi said:


> It's all really beside the point that migrant workers often fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.  You could argue companies would get more applicants if they paid and treated their workers better, and I wouldn't disagree, but sadly a number of industries are far too reliant on cheap (less than minimum wage) labor.


So just like with drugs, you just want to hand people needles and places to shoot up instead of blocking them at the border like any other sane country. "Aww shucks, those billion dollar corporations are gonna hire illegal aliens. Sure would be nice if we could stop them."


Xzi said:


> "Government = bad in all circumstances" is just an intellectually lazy take though, not to mention untrue.  What we need is far more than two political parties so that people can no longer make the claim that they aren't truly represented by any of the candidates.


Well that's not gonna happen with the uniparty in control. If the people united, we could beat them, but the left seems uninterested.


Xzi said:


> 8% versus 6% in 2016.  You'd expect a much bigger bump than that if black voters thought Trump's policies were truly beneficial to them.  And Trump's tax cuts are only permanent for the rich, the rest of us will see our taxes increased every couple years until they end up higher than they were before.


The fact that he got more black votes shows that they were beginning to see their lives improving. What's Ice Cream Biden done for them so far?

They won't increase if the Democrats in the Senate don't block them.


Xzi said:


> It's much more likely it was instigated by the Kremlin, as they'd be the only ones with something to gain from destabilization prior to a planned invasion.


"Much more likely" = "I'm gonna pull this out of my ass with no proof"

There are DOD paid biolabs and Zelenskyy was funneling the billions we sent over there through FTX, who in turn gave it to the uniparty as campaign donations. We need everybody's taxes including family, companies and campaigns.


Xzi said:


> Congressional investigations are toothless compared to a special counsel who can actually bring criminal charges against a guilty party.


When's the last time we've seen that happen?


Xzi said:


> None of the documents were declassified prior to being removed.  The act of simply moving the documents itself also wasn't illegal, and there'd be no controversy at all had both men returned them to where they belong before leaving office.


Presidents can declassify anything they want.


Xzi said:


> Which is, again, what they're incentivized to do with the current broken immigration system in place.  A path to citizenship with no wait time to cross the border would incentivize legal immigration instead.  Sadly it seems Biden is no more inclined to implement an actual fix than Trump was, but at least he's not creating additional problems by separating families at the border.


Exactly. How long are we gonna be lied to that the uniparty does not fulfill campaign promises before we start rising up together to enact change?


Xzi said:


> Which just makes you confident in your ignorance, not objectively correct.  Again, correlation =/= causation.


I'm not the one making excuses for all of our problems and why they can't be solved.


Xzi said:


> There are more steps we could take to ensure public safety, certainly.  Decriminalizing all drugs and opening up as many safe use/testing centers as possible has worked wonders for other countries.  Definitely not something the alcohol and private prison industries would be on board with, however.


Other countries also have strict immigration and importation laws. Some countries like Sweden don't have minimum wage laws. Weird that you don't want to emulate those.


Xzi said:


> Made no difference in the amount of fentanyl coming into the US.  Once again, the Southern border is hardly the only point of entry for drugs.


The numbers never seem to back up your statements.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/fentanyl-seizures-at-the-border-shatter-records-in-2022/


----------



## Xzi (Today at 3:25 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> So just like with drugs, you just want to hand people needles and places to shoot up instead of blocking them at the border like any other sane country. "Aww shucks, those billion dollar corporations are gonna hire illegal aliens. Sure would be nice if we could stop them."


I've given you a valid solution to both problems, I can't help it if you're more in favor of the "uniparty" status quo than anything else.



TraderPatTX said:


> If the people united, we could beat them, but the left seems uninterested.


You really need to stop referring to Democrats as "the left."  Leftists are very much united by a desire to see a workers' revolution happen in our time, if nothing else.  On other topics there tends to be a lot more infighting.



TraderPatTX said:


> They won't increase if the Democrats in the Senate don't block them.


The tax increases on the working class were written into the same bill that passed during the Trump administration.  It'd be much preferable if those increases were blocked by the current Congress.



TraderPatTX said:


> "Much more likely" = "I'm gonna pull this out of my ass with no proof"


I'm applying Occam's Razor to the scenario.  There would be no reason for the US to destabilize its own ally, especially an ally willing to fight against one of our biggest global adversaries.  And if destabilization was the goal, we could've simply let Russia run right over them rather than sending aid in any form.



TraderPatTX said:


> When's the last time we've seen that happen?


Last notable example was Watergate, I believe.  I'm sure there have been other, lower-profile cases prosecuted by special counsels more recently, however.



TraderPatTX said:


> Presidents can declassify anything they want.


Nonsense, you can't declassify the nuclear codes.  And declassifying anything is a process that takes time and has to go through several departments, it can't be a unilateral declaration by the president.



TraderPatTX said:


> Exactly. How long are we gonna be lied to that the uniparty does not fulfill campaign promises before we start rising up together to enact change?


As soon as people stop falling for the traps set by the elites to divide us.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.  Too many people wear these toxic traits like a badge of honor these days.



TraderPatTX said:


> Other countries also have strict immigration and importation laws. Some countries like Sweden don't have minimum wage laws. Weird that you don't want to emulate those.


Well yeah, obviously I'd rather not emulate laws which grant corporations even more power when they're already exploiting the system as it stands now.  The point is to have less dark money influencing policy, not more.



TraderPatTX said:


> The numbers never seem to back up your statements.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/fentanyl-seizures-at-the-border-shatter-records-in-2022/


You realize that more fentanyl seized by authorities = less fentanyl making its way into our drugs, right?  This is evidence that drug enforcement efforts have been more effective under Biden than they were under Trump, it's not evidence of a change in the total amount that people are attempting to smuggle into the US.


----------

