Trump

[Hank001]

Bishop149 notes:

Trump latest Tweet denies any financial interest in Russia or Saudi Arabia.
At least some such interests are a matter of public record.
It still staggers me how he gets away with such obvious lies. Lies that literately 10s on google can reveal as such.

Someone on his staff has indoctrinated him in "Orwellian New Speak". Trump's "lies" are the new "truth". Contradictory information is "Old Speak" that should be considered "fake news" and marks one as recidivist and therefore an "enemy of the people". You either embrace Trump's statements as being "correct" or become counter to the establishment. Now to embrace a postitve attitude towards the government one must remember that all truth is relative and fluid and must be established by the leadership and revealed to you for it to be considered the "approved truth". The main thing to remember is, if the Leader says it then it becomes Truth. To deny these new "truths" is to deny your loyalty to the country.

Embrace the new truth... Ingestion of large amounts of alcohol and sleeping with a loaded gun under your pillow helps in attaining the government approved mindset.

[BugMeister]

The only question is are the tax loopholes being employed, legal or not. If legal, they are simply playing by the rules. No one can complain.

- shall I answer that question for you? - THEY ARE ILLEGAL. - get it?

Are they? Do you know precisely which laws have allegedly been broken? If you are right, I would expect to see handcuffs breaking out all over. If you are wrong, I would expect to see what we are seeing...a bunch of non-specific grumbling.

- how does 25 years experience of working in the Inland Revenue grab you?
- if you want to know precisely which laws have been broken, I suggest you look up the relevant statutes on the internet..
- I'm pretty sure that the US authorities are familiar with the essential regulations regarding tax law..
- as far as I am aware, the IRS is already investigating Trump, Kushner and the Trump Organisation as part of Mr Mueller's enquiries,
- as are the Federal Authorities in New York City, regarding building regulations and employment statutes..

- if Trump continues to pour scorn on these authorities, I am sure they will be most keen to prove matters in court, if necessary
- just don't expect a swift rush to judgement

[Hank001]

Here's a new Robert Reich video with a few facts I wasn't aware of, but I checked them out and with Trump wanting to excuse Saudi Arabia's fatal escapade in Turkey is becoming clear that Trump believes the only way to go is Totalitarianism.

America's Most Dangerous Export

And yeah, expect some to ask, what's so bad about sucking up to dictators if it makes America strong.

Zieg Hiel

[Grim Lock]

Soo putting a certain flavor of person in charge emboldens other people of that flavor, WOW MIND BLOWN!!! well not really. That's part of why a two party system is such crap.

Ow and about the tax issue;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc

[Hank001]

Grim Lock notes:

Soo putting a certain flavor of person in charge emboldens other people of that flavor, WOW MIND BLOWN!!! well not really. That's part of why a two party system is such crap.

Yeah it's called Democracy within a Republic. Better Google those two terms before they no longer apply to the US. After that Google Facism and Totalitarianism.

[Observe]

Historically, the political center is where the greatest population distribution has been. Political populations diminishes the further they lean from center. This is how it has been, but something has happened. Some sort of political inversion, where the center has become irrelevant or even the enemy of both sides. There is no meeting-ground any more. How to bring things back into a normal traditional social political distribution is the question.

Part of the problem on the right, is they have elements that have long harbored racist and misogynist views. There is no question about this. Everyone knows it. Those voices have gained power, while moderate Republican views have been rendered ineffective or non-existent.

The thing is, moderates haven't magically disappeared. They are biting their tongues in silence - for fear of being ostracized by the parties that they have sworn lifelong allegiance to. Their choice is difficult. Do they change affiliation, or do they keep quiet in hope that their party will someday regain sanity?

It is a serious situation. If it continues, we risk further polarization and stagnation. Polarization leads to conflict and stagnation leads to death. It may seem a bit overly dramatic, but the United States of America as the world has known it, is dying from within.

[Mightysword]

- how does 25 years experience of working in the Inland Revenue grab you?

follow by:

I suggest you look up the relevant statutes on the internet.

And while we're on the subject of the internet and googling. A certain Democrat senator just landed herself in hot water by releasing the name of 125 of sexual assault survivors in an add attacking her rival (and guess what ... over his comment on the Kavanaugh hearing). And the reasons she's in hot water because:

- Some are not actually victims. Apparently just having some mutual friend tagging you as "survivor" is good enough as proof to be identified as such for a political campaign. Credits probably go to some mindbreaking datamining or blackbelt google-fuu.
- Some actual victims come forward blasting the adds because they never gave the permission for their name to be release. Sound familiar? If the story was to believe, Ford's letter to senator Dianne was supposed to be confidential. The reason the whole thing blew up because someone decided to leak it out to a newspaper. Ha! Leak they said. Remember I said whatever happens next probably gonna be worse? Guess this time they don't even bother to mask it as a leak.

You know ... I certainly feel vindicated about my position on the Kavanaugh hearing. Not because I support him, not because of my opinion on the actual subject matter, but simply because I firmly believe the critical decision making process should never be based on this kind of crap.

[Observe]

- if you want to know precisely which laws have been broken, I suggest you look up the relevant statutes on the internet..

This tells me either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are too lazy to back up your own claims. Simply because you say so, doesn't make it true. Likewise, simply because Trump say's so, doesn't make it false. I will begin to believe these claims of illegality, when I see someone being prosecuted. In the meantime, it appears that Trump and family have been using legal means to avoid paying what some would say is their fair share of taxes.

[Morkonan]

...And the reasons she's in hot water because:...

Because she's friggin' stoopid...

That was just moronically stoopid. For one, it's illegal in most areas, since sex-abuse/sex-crime victims name's are protected/unpublished. ("Illegal," I'm not sure. I know that police departments around the country have adopted that silence policy in regards to sex abuse victims, but I don't know if any actually have a "law" for it.)

Most common idiots know this. A few morons as well. The slightly mentally challenged, yet not quite in-danger-of-self-harm people know this as well.

But, she's a politician, so one must assume she's just friggin' stoopid. Oh, and unethical as well.

We just need to clean house, fire everybody, draw lots and start the F over. I'm not even kidding. Fire them all and anyone currently running must also be stoopid, too, so don't even bother with an election - Draw lots and start over and THEN hold an election after all the normal terms are up. We can't end up any worse in terms of "leadership."

[RegisterMe]

Here's a link to the story the guys are discussing above:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45883107

And yeah, talk about stupid. If there is a law against that sort of thing she should face trial, and if there isn't one there should be.

EDIT: OK, where "she" = whoever was responsible / involved. Even if she didn't know about it it's her campaign and, to my mind, she's ultimately responsible.

[BugMeister]

- if you want to know precisely which laws have been broken, I suggest you look up the relevant statutes on the internet..

This tells me either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are too lazy to back up your own claims. Simply because you say so, doesn't make it true. Likewise, simply because Trump say's so, doesn't make it false. I will begin to believe these claims of illegality, when I see someone being prosecuted. In the meantime, it appears that Trump and family have been using legal means to avoid paying what some would say is their fair share of taxes.

- well, one of us is lazy..
- your argument that it's ok as long as it's legal, is utterly ridiculous..
- Trump (and Kavanaugh, btw..) will pass any law that benefits himself and his rich cronies - and, guess what, that will make it "legal" - and you say that it's OK..??!!
- Hitler and his cronies made it "legal" to round up and massacre millions of Jews

- please be at least rational in your reply..

[Observe]

- your argument that it's ok as long as it's legal, is utterly ridiculous.

Who said anything about it being OK? I merely asked you to provide evidence that your allegations of illegal activity are true. You have not been able to do that. You are resorting to the same tactics as Trump is - false, unsubstantiated statements about anything you don't like.

[Mightysword]

- Trump (and Kavanaugh, btw..) will pass any law that benefits himself and his rich cronies - and, guess what, that will make it "legal" - and you say that it's OK..??!!

Except ... neither of them can. I suggest you google the internet to find out how the US government work.

In fact, it's pretty similar to how the UK system work, only congress can write the law (like your parliament), Trump's signature acts similarly like the Royal Accent from your Queen, but not part of the process. And the supreme court has no say in it unless someone decide to sue the law. This make it seems you're even unaware of your own law, which make the previous claims even more dubious.

[Morkonan]

- how does 25 years experience of working in the Inland Revenue grab you?...

With all due respect, that has little relevance - These are US Laws we're discussing. It's also "U.S. Tax Code" which is WTFRidicurous to understand and only gets more complicated the longer one looks at it and the more money one has.

There is one simple fact - If one is rich enough, one can pay less taxes, proportionately, than someone who is barely above the "poverty line" in terms of income. As a matter of fact, it is possible, if one is rich enough and can hire the people with the necessary familiarity with the codes, to pay almost nothing. It could even be possible to pay nothing, provided certain circumstances existed. Now, that does require specific things, but if one is rich enough, one can create those. In general, an accountant would probably advise an individual to not take too much advantage of these things. But, for someone advising Trump? They might just say "Lolz, watch this" and do it anyway, just to please Trump.

There are legal and "just" reasons why these codes exist. The inspiration for them would have been in the interests of encouraging certain economic behaviors that were seen to be beneficial. And, largely, in the grander scheme of things, they probably are. BUT, that doesn't keep someone from using them for selfish reasons. In short - You can pay less money in taxes, but only if you can afford to.

Here's a link to the story the guys are discussing above:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45883107

And yeah, talk about stupid. If there is a law against that sort of thing she should face trial, and if there isn't one there should be.

EDIT: OK, where "she" = whoever was responsible / involved. Even if she didn't know about it it's her campaign and, to my mind, she's ultimately responsible.

"OK, we finally got a list of names to use in that awesome finger-pointing smear ad we wanted to run!"

"Outstanding! Let's start calling those victims and getting their permission to use their names in the ad!"

"But, they probably don't want their name in the paper and most of them have gone to great lengths to keep these incidents secret."

"Oh... Well, OK, let's not call them and just put their names in the paper, anyway."

"Great idea!"

[Hank001]

Morkonan notes:

"Oh... Well, OK, let's not call them and just put their names in the paper, anyway."

"Great idea!"

She was on the news this morning calling to apologize to quite a few that ended up on that list by MISTAKE. And there are a chunck of ladies that are filing law suits. Funny hearing the voice mails of ladies she called; "You probably don't want to hear from me or talk to me..." (YA THINK?)

Should have some emoji to to stick here meaning going down in flames...

[BugMeister]

[Morkonan]

..Should have some emoji to to stick here meaning going down in flames...

("Disaster Girl" meme)

[Hank001]

@ Morkonan:
That'll do!

[ArcherVII]

What on earth is going on here?

because Trump was the lesser of two evils.

[Mightysword]

Because she's friggin' stoopid...

I don't want to dismiss it as someone simply being stupid. If we treat this sarcastically and passing it as meme, I feel we would fail to see the more serious issue. Again, amid all the fire and fury, nobody seemed to remember or care of the fact that Ford's letter was 'leak'. Sure, she was later persuaded to take a stand, but the order of event was all wrong. If the result of the hearing managed to strip Kavannaugh of his nomination, I'm willing to bet nobody will even remember how it started, and some may even believe it was totally worth it to leak such a story ... because hey, the end justified the mean right?

Stoopid? No. The angle, the content, the message the target, the setting of the ads all pointed at a very deliberated and strategic process. Perhaps a miscalculation, but this is definitely not the case of an innocent "opps, my bad". They did it knowing what they did, and because think they can get away with it. The question is "why do they think they can get away with it"? For me the answer is simple: because they just saw a precedent. They claim this is about the victims, of course they do. But I think anyone with half a brain can see it is not, they see something that can be weaponized and they use it, regardless of what's that "something" is.

Legal or illegal? Irrelevant. I don't think we need some kind of law to tell us not to release name of sexual abused victim. The serious issue is we no longer think along the line of traditional etiquette and common decency. Before Obama, there is a sacred tradition of no member of Congress will criticize and undermine the president when he's abroad. Republican broke this taboo on Obama, and we blame it on the craziness of the tea part. Trump has been getting the full brunt of it every time he's abroad, and you may think he deserves it. And maybe he does, but the question ... will it stop when it's not him? My bet is it won't. That's why I was very concern on the NYT's op-in about the WH leak last month. I don't care if it's Trump, or even someone worse than him. There are things that should never be done under any circumstance, because if you can justify it once, you can justified it all, or someone else will.