Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HipKat

Trump supporters cry bitter tears

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I'm not a socialist. I believe our economic system is currently way out of whack. We need a more regulated form of capitalism. We need to invest in our people and take care of them. Which is a crazy argument to make with alot of these bible thumpers on here. The cognitive dissonance is undeniable. Giving more power to the people is not communism by definition. I think alot of these right wingers are just trained to use these trigger words. It's like they are brainwashed into believing things that are against their best interests.

Highlighted above may be the most profound statement in any of these arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

This is an assertion you keep making. You think we are going to turn into china or something? Isn't that why you have all your guns? This is just a baseless and paranoid argument..

Raising taxes on the 1% and corporations is communism? 

Cutting out the middle man and insuring everyone is communism?

Can you bridge the gap for me where we get from taking care of all americans to a totalitarian communist state?

How do you reconcile with the fact your boy WANTS to be a dictator? Lol

Ok, first you're making the assumption that this happens in one great upheaval instead of slowly eased in throughout the decades. You say I make a paranoid argument and cap off your post with a statement about Trump becoming a dictator. Taking corporations and the wealthy at a FAIR rate is not Communism but common sense and so is reducing the costs of an out of control health care system. As for guns - they first want a registration, limits on ownership, and then confiscation which Robert "Beto" was proud to announce effectively nuking his presidential aspirations since that's the Code Red you're not supposed to talk about. This country poses many difficulties to fully swing over to Communism with that wretched Constitution and gun ownership in the way and that's why Civil Wars are fought internally through clashing ideologies creating a divisive atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Ok, first you're making the assumption that this happens in one great upheaval instead of slowly eased in throughout the decades. You say I make a paranoid argument and cap off your post with a statement about Trump becoming a dictator. Taking corporations and the wealthy at a FAIR rate is not Communism but common sense and so is reducing the costs of an out of control health care system. As for guns - they first want a registration, limits on ownership, and then confiscation which Robert "Beto" was proud to announce effectively nuking his presidential aspirations since that's the Code Red you're not supposed to talk about. This country poses many difficulties to fully swing over to Communism with that wretched Constitution and gun ownership in the way and that's why Civil Wars are fought internally through clashing ideologies creating a divisive atmosphere.

I didnt say it would happen over night. But right now we are heading in the complete opposite direction.

I didnt say trump will become a dictator, I even capitalized it for you. He WANTS to be a dictator its blatantly obvious. And you're worried about a communist take over! Lol

Shouldn't we know who has guns? Shouldn't we be giving guns to responsible owners? Beto is trash do I woukdnt worry about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I'm not a socialist. I believe our economic system is currently way out of whack. We need a more regulated form of capitalism. We need to invest in our people and take care of them. Which is a crazy argument to make with alot of these bible thumpers on here. The cognitive dissonance is undeniable. Giving more power to the people is not communism by definition. I think alot of these right wingers are just trained to use these trigger words. It's like they are brainwashed into believing things that are against their best interests.

You mean trigger word like bible thumper? Which both you and your left wing butt buddy HipKat have used several times.  Stop being a hypocrite!  Also a Regulated form of capitalism is taking away power from the people and putting the power in the hands of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Buffalochief2 said:

You mean trigger word like bible thumper? Which both you and your left wing butt buddy HipKat have used several times.  Stop being a hypocrite!  Also a Regulated form of capitalism is taking away power from the people and putting the power in the hands of the government.

When did I use Bible Thumper?? That would be an odd phrase for me to use since I'm a Pentecostal Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buffalochief2 said:

You mean trigger word like bible thumper? Which both you and your left wing butt buddy HipKat have used several times.  Stop being a hypocrite!  Also a Regulated form of capitalism is taking away power from the people and putting the power in the hands of the government.

There's a difference. The right  uses trigger words when they have no arguments. 

If the government is run by the people and for the people, and not by corporations and the 1%...we'll be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I didnt say it would happen over night. But right now we are heading in the complete opposite direction.

I didnt say trump will become a dictator, I even capitalized it for you. He WANTS to be a dictator its blatantly obvious. And you're worried about a communist take over! Lol

Shouldn't we know who has guns? Shouldn't we be giving guns to responsible owners? Beto is trash do I woukdnt worry about him.

I don't even think that is true. If he WANTED to be a dictator he would be making moves to change the Constitution to favor him running for an extra term or keeping him in office permanently which has not happened nor will it. I heard the same shit when Dumb Cowboy Bush was in office. As for guns, I do favor background checks (already in place) and training classes teaching the proper use and handling of such weapons (we need work on this). Clearly if you're an ex-mental patient with a history of violent thought or actions you should not be licensed to have a firearm.

Back to the Socialism topic I read a great article about the costs of such a system. In order to reach the lowest possible tax bracket of European "Socialist" countries you have to make over $500K here in the US as the tax system currently stands. Here are some tidbits:

The High Cost of Scandinavian “Socialism”

Scandinavian “Socialism”: The Offerings

It must first be clarified that Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) are not socialist. They are capitalist countries that impose excessive levels of taxation on their citizens to fund a wide array of social programs. Those programs include:

  • “Free” government funded healthcare through single-payer healthcare systems
  • Generous government funded maternal and paternal leave
  • Heavily subsidized higher education, free of tuition to all students (and in Norway, to international students as well)
  • Generous paid sick leave

Scandinavian “Socialism”: The Cost

The large welfare states of Scandinavia are not without their cost.  In 2017, all three countries had levels of taxation exceeding half of every dollar earned. Taxes as a percent of GDP are:

  • 50.7%  in Sweden
  • 53.5%  in Denmark
  • 54.7% in Norway

For reference, in the U.S. taxes at all levels of government averaged26% of GDP in 2016 (and have sincebeen cut).  

Listen to Bernie’s rhetoric and you’d get the impression that it’s “millionaires and billionaires” ponying up most of those funds – but they aren’t in Scandinavia. While theTax Foundation found that in 2017 the top 10% of American households paid 70.6% of the taxes, there is no Robin Hood in Scandinavia.

In America, an earner isn’t subject to thetop tax bracket of 37% until they earn over $500,000. While an American would need to earn eight times the average income to be subject to our top tax bracket, the figures are only 1.5 times average income in Sweden, 1.6 in Norway, and 1.3 in Denmark (source: pages 30-31).

And to add a cherry to this sundae these countries are now raising the retirement ages to pay for pensions and freebies given to immigrants!

Folkökningen skenar – då kan pensionsåldern höjas

(Translated)

Sweden's population is increasing at a furious pace, and this development means significantly increased costs to manage.

This is stated in the Swedish Municipalities and County Council (SKL) in the "Financial Report" which presented on Tuesday .

- From 2018, we expect the need for welfare to increase significantly faster than tax revenue, states Annika Wallenskog, chief economist at SKL.

In the report, SKL warns that a number of measures are needed to close the gap between costs and revenues, which is likely to rise to 59 billion in 2021.

The rapid population growth as a result of the large refugee reception last year and a childbirth approaching historically high levels are putting great pressure on the municipalities and county councils.

Higher retirement age is already being discussed in the Pension Group (where most of the parties are included) and may, according to the Minister of Finance, be an important step towards balance in the economy.

Several associations, such as the SPF Seniors and PRO, advocate a higher retirement age.

- If you look at those who start working at 30, there should be opportunities to work longer than 65. Then you must not forget that many of those who have worked from 20 are worn out as they approach retirement age, says Magdalena Andersson.

She believes that there must be a change in attitude about the elderly in the labor market.

- Those who are high up in their age should have the opportunity to work longer, says the finance minister.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my thing. If my taxes went up 10% to cover health care and I didn't have to pay over $11,000 a year for insurance plus the $1000.00 deductible, I'm saving almost $5000.00 a year, right? That's very simplified, I get it, but it makes a point, too

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Here's my thing. If my taxes went up 10% to cover health care and I didn't have to pay over $11,000 a year for insurance plus the $1000.00 deductible, I'm saving almost $5000.00 a year, right? That's very simplified, I get it, but it makes a point, too

That would be nice but I wouldn't trust them. What's likely to happen is your taxes go up and you only save a negligible amount leading to a net loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

That would be nice but I wouldn't trust them. What's likely to happen is your taxes go up and you only save a negligible amount leading to a net loss.

Are they go up 35%....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

I don't even think that is true. If he WANTED to be a dictator he would be making moves to change the Constitution to favor him running for an extra term or keeping him in office permanently which has not happened nor will it. I heard the same shit when Dumb Cowboy Bush was in office. As for guns, I do favor background checks (already in place) and training classes teaching the proper use and handling of such weapons (we need work on this). Clearly if you're an ex-mental patient with a history of violent thought or actions you should not be licensed to have a firearm.

Back to the Socialism topic I read a great article about the costs of such a system. In order to reach the lowest possible tax bracket of European "Socialist" countries you have to make over $500K here in the US as the tax system currently stands. Here are some tidbits:

The High Cost of Scandinavian “Socialism”

Scandinavian “Socialism”: The Offerings

It must first be clarified that Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) are not socialist. They are capitalist countries that impose excessive levels of taxation on their citizens to fund a wide array of social programs. Those programs include:

  • “Free” government funded healthcare through single-payer healthcare systems
  • Generous government funded maternal and paternal leave
  • Heavily subsidized higher education, free of tuition to all students (and in Norway, to international students as well)
  • Generous paid sick leave

Scandinavian “Socialism”: The Cost

The large welfare states of Scandinavia are not without their cost.  In 2017, all three countries had levels of taxation exceeding half of every dollar earned. Taxes as a percent of GDP are:

  • 50.7%  in Sweden
  • 53.5%  in Denmark
  • 54.7% in Norway

For reference, in the U.S. taxes at all levels of government averaged26% of GDP in 2016 (and have sincebeen cut).  

Listen to Bernie’s rhetoric and you’d get the impression that it’s “millionaires and billionaires” ponying up most of those funds – but they aren’t in Scandinavia. While theTax Foundation found that in 2017 the top 10% of American households paid 70.6% of the taxes, there is no Robin Hood in Scandinavia.

In America, an earner isn’t subject to thetop tax bracket of 37% until they earn over $500,000. While an American would need to earn eight times the average income to be subject to our top tax bracket, the figures are only 1.5 times average income in Sweden, 1.6 in Norway, and 1.3 in Denmark (source: pages 30-31).

And to add a cherry to this sundae these countries are now raising the retirement ages to pay for pensions and freebies given to immigrants!

Folkökningen skenar – då kan pensionsåldern höjas

(Translated)

Sweden's population is increasing at a furious pace, and this development means significantly increased costs to manage.

This is stated in the Swedish Municipalities and County Council (SKL) in the "Financial Report" which presented on Tuesday .

- From 2018, we expect the need for welfare to increase significantly faster than tax revenue, states Annika Wallenskog, chief economist at SKL.

In the report, SKL warns that a number of measures are needed to close the gap between costs and revenues, which is likely to rise to 59 billion in 2021.

The rapid population growth as a result of the large refugee reception last year and a childbirth approaching historically high levels are putting great pressure on the municipalities and county councils.

Higher retirement age is already being discussed in the Pension Group (where most of the parties are included) and may, according to the Minister of Finance, be an important step towards balance in the economy.

Several associations, such as the SPF Seniors and PRO, advocate a higher retirement age.

- If you look at those who start working at 30, there should be opportunities to work longer than 65. Then you must not forget that many of those who have worked from 20 are worn out as they approach retirement age, says Magdalena Andersson.

She believes that there must be a change in attitude about the elderly in the labor market.

- Those who are high up in their age should have the opportunity to work longer, says the finance minister.

 

It is true. He has floated the idea plenty of times.

 

“President for life. And he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day.”

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-chinas-president-for-life-power-grab-maybe-we-should-try-that

 

and

 

Repeatedly saying he should get more years in office because of investigations, or that his supporters will demand more years in office.

 

He shits on the constitution every day. He wants to be a dictator, will he? Probably not, but if he could, he would in a heartbeat.

 

Taxes may be higher in Scandinavian countries, but they also get more for their dollar than they do here.

 

They don’t go bankrupt due to medical debt

they aren’t put in debt to get a decent job

they don’t avoid going to the doctor and are generally much happier than people in the US

They also belong to strong unions and earn much higher wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Taxes may be higher in Scandinavian countries, but they also get more for their dollar than they do here.

They don’t go bankrupt due to medical debt

they aren’t put in debt to get a decent job

they don’t avoid going to the doctor and are generally much happier than people in the US

They also belong to strong unions and earn much higher wages.

 

Dude, Trump is trolling you with those comments about being President longer and you have to name some example of where he violated the Constitution rather than a blanket statement. Also, from that same article:

Scandinavians Perform Better in America Than in Scandinavia

The success of Scandinavian economies is despite their generous tax-and-spend policies, not because of them. You can thank the Scandinavian work ethic for their success – not the laws of economics being suspended.

There are over 10 million Americans with Scandinavian ancestry (most of which are the descendants of immigrants), and they far economically outperform their counterparts across the Atlantic.

There is, unfortunately, a lack of global household income data, and thus, the most recent information available is from a 2013 Gallup study of global household incomes. They found the median household incomes, purchasing power adjusted to be the following in 2012:

  • Norway: $51,489
  • Sweden: $50,514
  • Denmark: $44,360

The figures are the following median incomes for households of Americans with Scandinavian ancestry in 2012 are as follows:

  • Norwegian American $62,155 (21% higher)
  • Swedish American $62,295 (23% higher)
  • Danish American $63,630 (43% higher)

Additionally, the Census listed a group identifying themselves as “Scandinavian Americans,” who earned a median household income of $67,421 in 2012. The median household income of all Americans in 2012 was $51,371.

And the real kicker? These figures are not adjusted for differences in taxation. Not only do Scandinavian Americans far outperform Scandinavians economically, but they also get to keep a larger chunk of a larger pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Dude, Trump is trolling you with those comments about being President longer and you have to name some example of where he violated the Constitution rather than a blanket statement.

The Founders Would Have Impeached Trump for His Ukraine-Related Misconduct

The founders tackled many important issues during our nation’s formative years, but one of the paramount concerns during their debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was their intense concern about foreign interference in American politics. Their concern was animated by the corrupting effects that foreign governments or foreign persons could have on elected officials, including the president.

But the founders not only feared attempts by foreigners to improperly intervene in American affairs—they were just as concerned about a president who may seek out the help of a foreigner for their political or financial self-interest. As one scholar wrote, “That a scheming, feckless leader might sell out his own country was a very real threat in the minds of those tasked to create a constitutional framework for a new government.”

To address their concerns, the framers of the U.S. Constitution included several clauses designed to reduce the opportunities for improper foreign influence in the American political system. One of the most-cited constitutional provisions during the Trump presidency is the foreign emoluments clause, an anti-corruption provision that prohibits government officials from receiving anything of value from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. In fact, Congress currently is suing President Trump over alleged violations of the emoluments clause.

What did the founders say about the dangers of foreign involvement in American elections or a president who might solicit such corrupt involvement?

Alexander Hamilton warned specifically about a foreign power’s ability to cultivate a president or another top official. In Federalist Paper Number 68, published in 1788, Hamilton wrote:

These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry of the Union?

The founders set up our system of checks and balances among three branches of government, in part, to restrain potential presidential corruption. They knew:

… that if the checks and balances proved to be not strong enough to restrain the executive, or if the legislative and judicial branches, convinced by a crisis, yielded too much power to the executive—well, that way lay tyranny, because a president would then be able to do whatever he pleased, even if in the process he destroyed the republic.

One means of preventing this type of tyranny was through impeachment. As James Madison noted, there needed to be a way to remove the president other than through a subsequent election, or else “[h]e might pervert his administration into a scheme of [embezzlement] or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

The founders bestowed the impeachment power on Congress, therefore, as a constitutionally approved method to remove presidents who proved disloyal to the country. The framers of the Constitution originally drafted the impeachment clause to focus on the crimes of treason and bribery. Later, they added the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” at the urging of Virginia delegate George Mason, who thought naming just two crimes was too restrictive. High crimes and misdemeanors are often thought of as involving a president’s abuse of the public’s trust. As one legal scholar has opined:

Trump’s alleged attempt to strong-arm Ukraine into smearing a political opponent fits well within this framework. Using the office of the president for personal political benefit comports with both the standard understandings of bribery and the broader category of high crimes and misdemeanors.

For the founders, “the possibility particularly of foreign influence in any of many potentially insidious forms was an essential reason to bestow the impeachment power on the U.S. Congress, to check the power of a president beholden to or actively working with foreign nations.” Similarly, the founders believed that some forms of foreign-related corruption could violate the emoluments clause, which also could lead to impeachment. Edmund Randolph—governor of Virginia and first attorney general of the United States—said during the ratification debate, without reservation, that where a president becomes corrupted by receiving any present or emolument from foreign powers, “he may be impeached.”

The founders could not have been clearer: There should be no undue foreign influence in the internal affairs of the United States, especially in elections. And certainly, no president should be inviting it, especially for his personal gain. Through the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings and debates, the founders attempted to erect a solid framework—and a clear expectation—that would prevent this sort of corruption and abuse of power.

That framework and those norms worked fairly well for most of the past 232 years. But Donald Trump has flagrantly violated the principles set forth by the founders and enshrined in the Constitution. By pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf, Trump has damaged our national sovereignty and sought to corrupt our election process.

Aside from trampling on constitutional principles and deeply held norms, President Trump has run roughshod over federal law. Applicable statutes passed by Congress prohibit any candidate from soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign entity, including opposition research on a political opponent.

Ellen L. Weintraub, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, recently crystalized the issue, saying:

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our founding fathers sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.’ … Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.

President Trump’s solicitation of the Ukrainian president to interfere in the U.S. political process for Trump’s benefit violates the Constitution and federal law—not to mention the public trust. If they were here to see Trump’s deeply corrupt actions, the founders undoubtedly would vote to impeach him and remove him from office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HipKat said:

President Trump’s solicitation of the Ukrainian president to interfere in the U.S. political process for Trump’s benefit violates the Constitution and federal law—not to mention the public trust. If they were here to see Trump’s deeply corrupt actions, the founders undoubtedly would vote to impeach him and remove him from office.

Not for nothing but the Founding Fathers would have impeached every President since the 1900s for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

Not for nothing but the Founding Fathers would have impeached every President since the 1900s for the same reason.

I'm sure there's a little dirt on all or most of them, but the corruption, the lack of respect for his office and his administration, the thousands and thousands of lies, the issue in Syria now and the disconnect from our decades old alliances capped off with the non-stop tweeting that makes it seem like he's not focused on his job keeps a solid bulls-eye on his back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, HipKat said:

I'm sure there's a little dirt on all or most of them, but the corruption, the lack of respect for his office and his administration, the thousands and thousands of lies, the issue in Syria now and the disconnect from our decades old alliances capped off with the non-stop tweeting that makes it seem like he's not focused on his job keeps a solid bulls-eye on his back

There HAS been a bullseye on his back from the time of the primary from the corrupt bureaucracy. The last thing they wanted was a Populist President and have unleashed every avenue under their power to either cow or remove him. Believe me, if Hillary had gotten in none of this would be happening and they'd all be happy that the rot would continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

There HAS been a bullseye on his back from the time of the primary from the corrupt bureaucracy. The last thing they wanted was a Populist President and have unleashed every avenue under their power to either cow or remove him. Believe me, if Hillary had gotten in none of this would be happening and they'd all be happy that the rot would continue.

So true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

There HAS been a bullseye on his back from the time of the primary from the corrupt bureaucracy. The last thing they wanted was a Populist President and have unleashed every avenue under their power to either cow or remove him. Believe me, if Hillary had gotten in none of this would be happening and they'd all be happy that the rot would continue.

If Hillary had gotten and it would be the same exact thing except it would be the Republicans. There’s like I said before, Trump is just revenge for Obama. Who was revenge for Bush. Who was revenge for Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HipKat said:

If Hillary had gotten and it would be the same exact thing except it would be the Republicans. There’s like I said before, Trump is just revenge for Obama. Who was revenge for Bush. Who was revenge for Clinton

We've had a string of Presidents screw over the country but the last one who was actually impeached was Clinton who they didn't even try to nail on the real crimes he committed. Instead they put on a show trial over some perjury nonsense probably because the graver crimes involved Swamp Creatures on both sides of the aisle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

There HAS been a bullseye on his back from the time of the primary from the corrupt bureaucracy. The last thing they wanted was a Populist President and have unleashed every avenue under their power to either cow or remove him. Believe me, if Hillary had gotten in none of this would be happening and they'd all be happy that the rot would continue.

You think trump is a populist president?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wOw.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...