Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yah kill dem jobs. Can't cut dem government jobs though.
Companies like amazon currently don't pay any taxes at all. Millionaires pay lower taxes than you do. You cannot possibly think that it is necessary for billionaires to pay less taxes than you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol, your petty $10 billion deficit.Try our $1 trillion deficit on for size!
Yeah, America's fiscal policy is a mess. They cut taxes while increasing spending. It makes no sense. America needs to cut it's military spending by a large amount. It needs to increase taxes on the uber rich, who are currently paying less taxes than the middle class. They also need to actually enforce taxes on massive companies who often pay little to no taxes at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If family separation, kids in cages, drinking out of toilets, if those things were real, wouldn't they and shouldn't they take precedence over the g7 issue which became a whole lot of nothing?
What trump has done to migrants is a terrible thing. Trump attempting to violate the constitution is also a terrible thing. If you ignore the terrible thing he is doing today to focus on a terrible thing he did last month, you let him get away with the new terrible thing. And the reason it became a whole lot of nothing is because both the republicans and democrats pointed out that it was blatantly unconstitutional and trump backed down. If it hadn't gotten any media attention that wouldn't have happened and trump would be continuing with his plan to violate the constitution.
Same thing with the Muller report (insert cricket noise here)They need to shitcan Shift, however you spell that dumbasses name. Talk about counterproductive. He's "evidence" that he never produced etc, cry wolf, that's all this is becoming because of him.
The mueller report contains at least 8 counts of obstruction of justice. I agree that the democrats lost the messaging war in getting that information across. But that doesn't change the fact that the report says trump committed at least 8 crimes. There is still a decent chance he could be charged criminally once he leaves office.
But the Ukraine story is much more straight forward than obstruction. You just need to figure out 1) did trump ask for a thing of value? He has already said he did, so count 1 is already decided. They are basically just pretending like this doesn't exist.
2) did he withhold funding to coerce them into providing that thing of value? Trumps chief of staff said they did, so count 2 is also looking pretty likely. And yes I know he spent all weekend arguing that he didn't mean the thing he said. What he really meant was something completely different from the words he said. But "we do that all the time" is pretty straight forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the unions don't seem to be a fan of medicare for all, one less thing they can negotiate for, it would weaken them a great deal, good or bad it will have a big impact on them.
Ok. is that relevant? They want to have as much control and power over the members of their unions as possible. Of course they don't want everyone to be guaranteed health care, because that weakens their control over their members. Luckily, Sanders and Warren both have big plans on how to strengthen unions at the same time.
if it would save people money that would be front on center when they talk about it, but that is not the case, prime example is when they tried to nail down Warren on the issue, whether it will cost middle income people more or not. Obviously it will since she has yet to answer the question.
She has answered the question dozens of times. She is just trying to avoid giving right wing media a soundbite. Her answer is that you will pay less because you will no longer be paying co-pays, premiums etc. So you will be paying less than you are paying right now. But alot of americans have it in their head that paying lots of money to a private company is somehow better than paying a little money to the government so she doesn't want to say the words "taxes will go up", even if their total costs are going down. The media would immediately jump on it and say "taxes are going up on the middle class" despite the fact that they would be saving money. Alot of people aren't very savvy and would immediately hate the idea.
But i agree she should just come out and say public taxes will increase but your private taxes will come down by alot more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If they want it to be affordable, they have to "negotiate". That is essentially price fixing, as they will have a 100% market share. We don't price fix, which is why we lead the world in innovation.
Do you though? if you look at straight numbers of how many research papers are published, then absolutely, the US is the top of the pack. But if you take into account the size of the population of the countries, then many other countries do more medical research per captia. It's easy to say you lead the world when you have 2-10 times the population of most of the other advanced countries in the world.
It takes on average 12 years and $350 million to get a new drug through the FDA. If we limit a company's ability to make a profit, I doubt we will continue to make so many new lifesaving drugs.
Removing their ability to price gouge doesn't stop them from turning a profit. For example insulin in Canada is about $32 a vial. In the US that same vial will cost you about $300 dollars. Drug companies are not going bankrupt in Canada. There is no reason they should be allowed to get away with that. The real issue is that drug companies, with their patents, get a monopoly on the market and then they can price fix all they want. If the consumers had a significant bargaining position, they wouldn't be able to do that. A single payer system gives consumers that bargaining power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
In 2018, there were 127.59 million households in America. A cost of $3.2 trillion spread over 127.59 million households is $25,000 per year. If you go by each person instead of each household, it's just shy of $10,000 a year (using a population of 330 million).
The US healthcare costs in in 2017 was 3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person. That means that costs would be going down from what is being paid now. You are attempting to argue people couldn't afford to pay less than they are currently paying.
Another study by Charles Blahous of the Mercator institute was used by some to claim that Sanders' plan would save $2 trillion over ten years. However, that analysis assumed that Medicare-for-all would pay hospitals at the Medicare rate. The problem with that is that the Medicare rate only pays hospitals for 87% of their costs. The only reason hospitals can afford that is because private insurers pay 144% of the costs.
That study is interesting. Although it is unclear if it is fully valid. For example I was looking at some of their sources and they are based on research done on the costs of hospitals in the early 90's. The medical industries have changed alot in the last 25 years. I'm not saying study isn't valid, but it is hard to tell without taking a deeper look at it.
One of the main reasons that Canada's system supposedly works so well is that tens of thousands of Canadians get their healthcare by coming to America (45,000 in 2015 according to https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-tourists-drop-1.3800729). Can you imagine what their waiting time for an appointment would be if you added 45,000 people to the waiting lists?
45,000 out of a population of 37.5 million. That is a tiny fraction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
the simple fact is that they take more in taxes than they could ever save. Both California and Vermont strongly considered moving to single-payer. But even though they are both solid blue, far left states, they ultimately rejected it. Why? Because the plans would have had an annual cost of roughly $25,000 per household.
Could you provide references to that? I took a look and the information I found said California approved it but the governor kept vetoing it. I'm not sure where you got that information from.
There is no conceivable way that could save money.
The current studies disagree. Even the studies done by right wing think tanks I have seen say that america could cover everyone and pay less. Here is a link to an article discussing a recent study which found america would save $886 billion over 10 years. Every study I have seen says Americans would save money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
They might be able to trick people into buying coverage for something when they already have coverage for it. In a new system there will always be confusion around what is or isn't covered. People would try to take advantage of that confusion. It is much simpler this way. If medicare for all covers something, then you can't charge people money to duplicate something they already have.Ok, I see. But why should it matter if they also offer to cover something that the government already does? Doesn't seem like outlawing it would be necessary because there wouldn't be much if any demand for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
his is the map of the election, Canada has 5 prominent parties but only 2 can really win federally.
Agreed. Canada badly needs the election reform Trudeau promised. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that is going to happen.
MORE MASSIVE DEFECITS WOOHOO
Have you seen what ontario's conservative government has been doing? They significantly increased the deficit. No matter who won, reducing the deficit was unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it must be working since it's not in the news nor are "kids in cages" go figure, no more outrage, problem solved apparently lol
The problem is that trump commits outrages and crimes on such a regular basis and with such speed that if you dwell on the outrage from last month then you aren't reporting on the outrage today. I agree that these issues deserve more attention from people, but how do you let Trump get away with violating the constitution (his attempt to put the g7 at his resort)? How do you not report on his crimes and impeachment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We got em this time bois!
He has already confessed to one crime. His chief of staff confirmed in a news briefing the other day that they committed a 2nd. He spent all weekend trying to backtrack and convince people he didn't mean the thing he said. But he did say it.
At this point he is going to be impeached on the 1 count he has already admitted to. Whether or not additional articles of impeachment will follow remains to be seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I could see it being less for those who pay a high price for healthcare, but certainly for those who do not, like many government employees for example, that will be an increase for many others.
But would it be? At the moment companies can use insurance in lieu of payment. They can even use it to prevent people from leaving to get another job because if you go uninsured even temporarily it could ruin you. If medicare for all was the law then they couldn't do that. They would then need to offer other forms of compensation instead to attract and keep their employees. IE they would need to pay their employees more.
I would like to see much stronger/better standards for anyone running for any public office.
Agreed. But it is part of the structural problems with politics. Politicians care WAY more concerned with what their campaign donors think than with what you think. So they will say what they think people want them to during an election. But when it is over they are going to go right back to what their donors want them to. The system is broken and needs to be changed.
What we need is public financing of elections. Something in the general vein of Andrew Yang's freedom dividend. In this, every person in america would have a specific amount of money they could give to any politician they want. They couldn't use it for anything else. At the same time you would put much more restrictions, or ban outright private donations to politicians. If you do that, then every voter is a potential campaign donor. If you ignore what the electorate want, then you can't raise money or get votes. It would remove alot of the corruption from politics by removing the incentives to act against the interests of their voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm afraid I don't understand eliminating private insurance companies. Let us say we get universal, government healthcare. Why shouldn't we have the choice to get private insurance which may open avenues for more drugs and treatments that the government doesn't cover?
You could under medicare for all. Medicare for all makes it illegal to offer private insurance that is duplicative, but does not ban private insurance companies outright. So if medicare for all covers a medication or procedure, you cannot try to sell someone insurance for it (because they already have coverage). Since medicare for all covers pretty much everything, that would essentially ban private insurance because there is very little for them to insure people against that they don't already have coverage for. But if there is something medicare for all didn't cover, then an insurance company could certainly sell insurance for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what threshold is going to be the tipping point where Pelosi has the votes to impeach in the house?92% unfavorable coverage of Trump?95% unfavorable coverage of Trump?100% unfavorable coverage of Trump?
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The media covers Trump in a negative light, in large part, because he is constantly doing negative things. It's hard to give positive coverage to a man who commits crimes in office and violates the constitution. But I won't pretend like there isn't bias as well.
They likely have the votes to impeach him now. I don't think Pelosi would have started the inquiry if she wasn't convinced she had sufficient support to carry through with it. But they don't hold a vote until they are done with the inquiry and have finished the articles of impeachment. Given that they have now admitted to, and then tried to walk back, the admission they the explicitly engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine, it is getting worse for trump every week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just who do you think you are going to gaslight with that narrative?
I don't know what you are talking about. What narrative do you think is a "gaslight"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your theory that the Democrats need more than 90% unfavorable coverage of Trump sounds like a Hillaryesque cop-out.
You are highlighting my point. Even though trump committed numerous crimes and the media covered it, many people, seemly such as yourself, continue to believe that he didn't commit them just because trump repeatedly said he didn't. Even though the report says that he very clearly did.
If the dems had done a better job getting that information across in their hearings, then perhaps the media would have been able to convince people that reality is.... well reality. Instead a large percentage of the population just chose to ignore reality and believe the lies of a conman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you believe your wealth comes from taxes, then you either work for the government or are on welfare.
I have never said wealth comes from taxes. But that is one hell of a smackdown you put on that straw man. Bravo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I had points about multiple topics that you threw out that you seemed to think were positive about trump. I provided evidence that most, if not all, were false. You choose to move the goal post on one of them and ignore all of the rest. This is how the right likes to argue. Lie, when someone points out your lies, move the goalposts or change the topic.
The topic is about whether or not the impeachment inquiry is "witch hunt". Trump has released evidence he has committed at least 1 crime and you just want to distract and pretend it's not happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't care what it sounds like. If I thought Trump was doing something to increase the amount of illegals coming across the border besides creating more jobs for the poor, I would let you know why I thought that.
So once I debunk several of your talking points you suddenly don't have time? This is one of the problems of politics. You have chosen to believe a set of things that aren't true. When presented with evidence that these things aren't true you retreat to safe space, probably fox news, so that they can repeat your beliefs back at you and reinforce that right wing bubble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People with capital create jobs and wealth. Period.
Sort of. Demand creates opportunity that people with capital can fill. If there is no demand, then it doesn't matter how much capital you have. You can't create jobs if you can't sell anything. You can't sell something when no one can afford to buy it.
So the real way to create jobs is to create a wealthier lower and middle class. If they have money to spend, then that creates demand. Someone with capital will then try to meet that demand so they can generate more capital. If you push policies that destroy the middle class, like republicans love to do, then you are destroying that demand and weakening job creation.
Trickle down economics is a lie sold by rich people who just want to get richer. But they need you to believe that if they are allowed get REALLY rich, then somehow you are better off. Even though they are paying their workers just enough to survive while they fly to their private island on one of their 12 private jets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't have time to chase down your red herrings.
That sounds like a right wing argument. When someone provides facts and statistics pretend like it's fake. But when someone says Obama is a muslim kenyan, or that a migrant caravan is invading the country, well obviously that needs to be believed. lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
single payer, eliminating private healthcare does not seem possible or even logical, it appears most other countries do not have that type of system.
No one is talking about eliminating private healthcare, they are talking about eliminating private insurance. Those are 2 very separate things.
I watched your video. They use alot of odd talking points. Like pointing out crises in the NHS in the UK. That's true there are, but primarily because right wing people keep trying to de-fund it because they want to let their rich friends profit from a private system. They pointed out a case where a woman had to wait in a hospital bed for in a hallway. That is obviously not an ideal case, but in america the issue is that they instead simply don't allow people like that to get healthcare. it is easy to have enough rooms when a large percentage of your population can't afford to use them. They pointed out that wait times can be long and that is true. But it is because admittance is based on severity. So a rich guy with a broken toe doesn't get in before a guy with a serious medical issue. In Canada, healthcare is given based on need, not on the size of your checkbook.
No one claims that Canadian or UK healthcare is perfect. But no one dies because they can't access a medical procedure. No one goes bankrupt because they got in an accident.
Depending on the state, people earning 30-50k-ish pay about 35% taxes (medicare,medicaid etc) currently (personal experience). How much higher should taxes go up for pay for these plans? At what % would you say we'd have to stop because that's too high a % for people to be taxed at?
You seem to be looking at this backwards. My numbers are just made up as an example for argument. Let's say you pay 35% in taxes and 15% in insurance (premiums, co-pays etc) right now. If a new system increased your taxes to 45%, but eliminated your insurance costs entirely, then you are paying 5% less of your income. You are saving money, not paying more. So asking how much more people can afford to pay is a moot point, because they will be paying less than they are paying now.
Right wing politicians want people to think that paying higher taxes is automatically a terrible thing. Like somehow the fact that the money goes to the government is more evil than money going to a for profit company. But medicare for all will save you money. It will make sure that no one goes bankrupt over medical expenses. It will make sure no one dies because they couldn't afford care.
It is both the best financial and moral policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The democratic presidential candidates, do you believe them, what they say, what they promise?.
The centrist candidates, people like buttigeg, harris etc would shift right in the general election and a lot of these promises will be tossed. I don't think they can be trusted to follow through because they don't actually believe in these policies. They just know have no hope of winning the nomination without saying that they do.
Sanders certainly means what he says. Warren, it is difficult to say. She is courting alot of centrists, such as hilary clinton and saying she is a "team player". Alot of people read that as meaning she will tack right to appease the Dem establishment.
if so, how are these promises possible?
By actually making the rich and corporations pay their fair share. The richest people in the US pay a lower effective tax rate than you do. They have all the best accountants, tax lawyers and lobbyists, so they have gotten away with not paying their share. Companies like Amazon pay virtually nothing in taxes enough though they take in billions in revenue. Once the rich and corporations start paying in their fair share, it will generate alot of revenue for the government.
And to be clear, for medicare for all, people will stop paying the "private tax" for private health insurance and instead be paying a lower government tax. So one kind of taxes will go up, but a different kind that costs more will be eliminated.
I'd also like to point out that the right never asks these questions when the republicans wants to increase spending. Trump gave 10's of billions more to an already incredibly bloated military budget, he wants to spend 10s of billions on a wall. Republicans cheer for spending money on things that won't benefit them, but when the government wants to spend money on something that would improve people's lives suddenly they are concerned about where the money will come from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You say he’s committed high crimes. You’ve listed them all. You’re 100% sure he committed a crime, so why hasn’t he been impeached yet.
That's like looking at a guy who is in jail waiting for the charges to be laid and saying, "well why hasn't he been convicted?". Trump committed crimes. Trump is getting impeached for those crimes right now.
As for why it hasn't happened before now, it's because the democrats suck at getting information across. The mueller report showed trump committed at least 8 counts of obstruction of justice. But they really sucked at explaining that. So trump was able to win the narrative by just repeating "no obstruction" over and over and over and people just believed it. If you can't convince people that a crime occurred, then going forward with impeachment would be reckless.
But now the crime(s) is quite clear. The crime is easier to understand for people who are only kind of paying attention. The question is just "did trump ask Ukraine for dirt on Biden?". If yes, then he committed a crime. Since we already know for certain the answer is yes, that is an easy case to make. So crime #1 is certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I gave multiple points about multiple things. You responded to one of them and didn't even bother to provide any info to back it up.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If this is true, there will come a day when you’re standing in a breadline and wishing you did vote for Republicans
So you are willing to back thieves and criminals for the vain hope it will benefit you financially? What kind of person does that make you?
And how foolish do you need to be to believe that politicians who only care about themselves and their rich cronies are somehow going to make you richer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Meanwhile, every progressive Dove is labeled as a Russianbot....
Maintaining a minimal number of troops in an area that is not involved in active combat is neither a dove nor a hawk idea. It was essentially a peacekeeping mission. But trump lackeys will grasp at any straw to try to defend him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Impeach him then....oh wait
I don't understand your point. He is already in the process of being impeached.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What you call extreme liberalism, the rest of the world calls the center. The american system has just slid really far right in the past few decades. That is now correcting itself.Perhaps the one good thing about Donald is his obvious dislike of the current climate of extreme liberalism.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
citation? proof?
Mick mulvaney announced it in a press conference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wanting war is not a left wing or right wing policy. Most progressives want to pull out of iraq and afganistan and stop getting embroiled in stupid wars. I'm assuming you are talking about left wing people being against trump letting the Kurds be massacred.
You don't have to be a war hawk to think that america should protect it's allies that have been repeatedly promised by the US government that it would support them. Especially when protecting them doesn't cost that much. Turkey couldn't risk accidentally killing US troops. They couldn't begin their invasion if Americans were there. The american troops were not in danger.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not going to comment on a hypothetical.
What hypothetical? The white house has announced this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think you are taking the care to isolate the many variables here that do not pinpoint race as being the reason for these actions and sayings.
So trump can do tons of racist things, (such as illegally refusing to rent to black people) but unless you can get a signed confession explaining why he did those racist things, then you will refuse to accept that he is racist. That is the most biased answer I can think of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, I don't see him say or do racist things.
Not letting black people live in his buildings? that isn't racist? Telling american born people of color that they are from failed countries, that isn't racist? Pushing for the death penalty for innocent black teenagers. that isn't racist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Donald Trump is the greatest shit talker to take office. He says things to hurt. You gotta realize, he is the WWE candidate, he can't just let things slide.
That is the perfect example of your bias. You see him say and do racist things but you brush it off as he is a "shit talker" or a "womanizing man pig". You see what a piece of shit he is is, but you won't acknowledge it. That is a core part of the problem in modern american politics.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You keep failing to reply to the main point of this topic. Trump is instructing the US government to pay him millions of dollars. That violates the constitution. Do you believe the constitution should be upheld?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're giving way too much credit to a person who most regard as a complete idiot.The evil "genius" theory doesn't hold water.
No one ever thought he was an evil genius. He is a con man. He is good at grifting and convincing people of lies. That is how he has made money his whole life. And if he were a genius we wouldn't know he was doing these things. He has been doing this so sloppily that his abuses are found all the time. The problem is that about 35% of the country are either so brainwashed they ignore it, or they simply don't care that he is doing it.
He aint in it for the money.
Money, power and popularity is all he has ever cared about.
But again, his motivations are kind of besides the point. If he takes millions of dollars from the US government, he is violating the constitution. The republicans claim they support the constitution. So if they are willing to trample it, why should anyone take any part of it seriously?
Created:
Posted in:
Fun twist. Mick Mulvaney just confirmed there was a quid pro quo. Here is his exact quote:
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up the money,"
He is saying they held up the money because of a conspiracy theory around a missing DNC server that they wanted Ukraine to investigate. When prompted by a reporter as to whether the money being withheld was to get an investigation into the DNC he responded with "we do that all the time with foreign policy."
This is a straight up confession. He confirmed they held up the money in order to get Ukraine to investigate the DNC. That is a quid pro quo. Ie. Ukraine gets the money and Trump gets dirt on his political rivals.
So the crime tally is now
1) campaign finance violation. when trump asked for a thing of value, ie dirt on opponents, this was a crime. This is 100% confirmed by the partial transcript
2) Abuse of office - he used the power of his office to attempt to extort a foreign country so that he could influence an election in his favor
3) any potential crimes we find from the cover up. They are still working hard to bury this so there are likely crimes they have or will commit in their attempts to cover up their other crimes.
This is getting worse for Trump by the day.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct. Trump could have regained those consumers by "shutting up and dribbling" as they say in the NBA.So if Trump was in it for the money like the NBA, why didn't he shut up and dribble?
Plan A was to use this as a branding exercise and make money that way. Plan A failed when he won. So he went to Plan B which was to directly profit from being president. Using government funds to enrich himself, selling access to the president, selling america's foreign policy to russia and the Saudis' etc.
he can make way more from corruption than he could otherwise.
As to why he didn't shut up, I don't think he is capable of it. He just has no filter and is an idiot. He just can't help himself but say and do terrible things.
But again, we are getting side tracked. The moment the US government pays him money other than his salary, he is violating the constitution. He has been doing it in smaller amounts this whole time, but trying to take 10's of millions is a single event is a very serious breach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe Trump is racist or misogynistic, and that is partly to do with the fact that I listen to the guy myself and come to my own conclusions rather than believe the media's hysteria.
I didn't give you any media hysteria. i gave you quotes and descriptions of things he said and did. None of the events and quotes I gave you are interpretations. They are facts. you can really look at that list of racist things he has said and done and tell me none of them are racist?
Fyi, I don't think being a womanizing man pig makes you misogynistic.
Being a womanizing man pig and misogynistic are pretty much synonyms. You can see it in his criticisms of opponents who are female. He constantly attacks them based on their looks and female characteristics. He constantly calls them ugly, fat, bleeding from their "whatever". that is misogyny. I mean even his own daughters, he can't help but sexualize them. Even when they were a few months old.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And how does that square with the fact he lost half his consumer base just coming down the escalator?
He didn't lose half of them by announcing. He lost lots of them by being terrible. But if he had lost, no one would really have cared. They would have forgotten the terrible things he said and did and focused on some new terrible thing. But it would have gotten him huge amounts of advertising as well as potentially getting him more access to foreign investment from the saudi's and the russians. The fact that he won threw a wrench into that plan because people never forgot the terrible things he said and did because he is still saying them and doing them.
Also, he hasn't pocketed any of his salary.
his salary is 400,000 per year. He will make 10's of millions off of the G7 summit. Forgoing thousands gives him cover to make millions. People, such as yourself, will point to the small amount of money he refused to take while he takes millions from US tax payers, Russian Oligarchs and Saudi Princes.
But again, the level to which he is corrupt and greedy is a side point here. Taking any kind of payment from the US government, such as the G7 summit, is a violation of the constitution. Violating the constitution in such a brazen way is an impeachable offense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He aint in it for the money.
Strongly disagree. There is a very compelling argument to be made that he never thought he would win. He was planning to run to get name recognition for his brand and use that to make more money. This argument would also suggest that he and his wife were shocked and horrified when he won.
But that is not the critical point for this topic. The constitution is very clear. The president cannot get any kind of emolument (payment) from the government other than his salary. His company is going to make millions from the US government from the summit. Because he has not divested from his businesses, he stands to make millions from this decision. This is an extremely clear violation of the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can say a lot bad things about Trump that are true, but I don't believe he is stupid, racist, or misogynistic.
For stupid - He can't spell. He does obviously stupid things like drawing with a sharpie on a government map to try to convince people his tweets weren't wrong. He appoints incredibly incompetent people to government posts. He lets Rudy Giuliani speak for him. He released a partial transcript of a call in which he explicitly committed a crime and was shocked that the impeachment inquiry went ahead. He went to a disaster area and threw paper towels at people. He rambles on and on without really making sense. I can keep going a long time with this so I will cut it off here.
For racist- He called mexican immigrants rapists (and some might be good people). He said that several members of congress were from "countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" when 3 of the 4 of them were born in america and all were US citizens. But they aren't white so he assumes they must be foreigners. He got sued in the 70's by the department of justice for refusing to rent his apartments to black people. Trump took out a full page add in the paper calling for the execution of 5 black teenagers who had been wrongly convicted of a crime. As of 2016, more than a decade after they were proven innocent, he still said he thinks they're guilty. The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices. In congressional testimony, Trump said that some Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn’t be allowed because “they don’t look like Indians to me.”
This one can keep going all day too so i will stop here.
For misogynistic - Here are some quotes.
"Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" [Sept. 9, 2015]
"She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." [Aug. 7, 2015]
"Can you imagine the parents of Kelli ... when she said, 'Mom, Dad, I just fell in love with a big, fat pig named Rosie?'" [Dec. 29, 2006]
"You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women. If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you're dead. … You've got to be strong. You've got to be aggressive. You've got to push back hard. You've got to deny anything that's said about you. Never admit." [Via Bob Woodward's Fear: Trump in the White House]
"She does have a very nice figure ... if [she] weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." [June 4, 2004]
When asked if Ivanka, then 24, had breast implants: "She's actually always been very voluptuous." [2006]
When asked if he would stay with Melania if she was disfigured in a car crash: "How do the breasts look?" [April 11, 2005]
About his then infant daughter Tiffany - "Well, I think that she's got a lot of Marla. She's a really beautiful baby, and she's got Marla's legs." Motioning to his chest, Trump added: "We don't know whether she's got this part yet, but time will tell." [1994]
Here is a link for reference:
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He has already lost over a billion dollars of net worth since running for president. Whatever he makes at Mar-a-lago won't put a dent in those losses.
Since no one knows what his net worth is, i would love to know where you got that figure from.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I dunno, I think if Trump was really that greedy for money he wouldn't be giving away his presidential salary. I think he probably would have been better off in the private sector.
The annual salary of the US president is $400,000. This one event has the potential to make him 10's of millions of dollars if the 2010 summit is any indication. That salary is peanuts compared to what he can make by being president.
And not just for him. His children have gotten huge boosts in investments into their companies since trump became president. Ivanka has gotten over a dozen trademarks in China while she has been part of the Trump government. Jared kushner has gotten huge sums of money from countries he deals with in a government capacity. He has gotten 10's of millions of the Saudi's. While being one of the top government advisers on the middle east.
Selling access to america's policy has made the trumps hundreds of millions of dollars.
he real estate company Cadre, owned by Kushner, his brother, Joshua, and a friend, has taken in $90 million in investments from Saudi Arabia and a "Goldman Sachs entity" in the Cayman Islands. Cadre is also one of the properties that Kushner initially forgot to put on his security-clearance application when he joined the Trump administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And that is really my biggest disappointment in Trump. I thought his election would single handedly revitalize the satire industry.
It's hard to make good satire when the subject of the satire is the biggest joke of all. I mean drawing on a government weather map to try to convince people your tweet wasn't wrong? That is just so stupid on the face of it that no joke can capture it properly.
But the dishonest coverage they run damn near 24/7 of the president has woken a lot of people up.
I don't disagree that all corporate media has a spin and a bias. They certainly do. But most of what they say about him is based in reality. He is the stupid, racist, misogynist asshole they say he is. Now they certainly show bias when they point this out, and not every example they use is valid. But their underlying argument is usually based in fact.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Is the government really paying for it though or is he since it is his property?
These summits are paid for by the government of the country holding the summit. For example, for the G8 summit in canada in 2010 the canadian government spent 80 million dollars on food and lodging for the summit. The US government would be expected to pay the resort for the food and renting the resort.
If trump were to forgo charging anything for the summit, that would be completely different. But Mulvaney said it would be "millions of dollars cheaper" than other venues. So that would strongly suggest Trump will be charging for the privilege of using his resort.
If he is charging the government money, then he is violating the constitution.
Created:
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution says:
“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for hisServices, a Compensation which shall neither beencreased nor diminished during the Period for which heshall have been elected, and he shall not receive withinthat Period any other Emolument from the UnitedStates, or any of them.”
An emolument is any kind of payment.
The Trump government has decided that the next G7 summit will be at a Trump owned and Trump managed resort in Florida. The US government is now going to pay 10's of millions of dollars to Donald trump's business. A business which Trump has not divested from. This means Trump directed the US government to pay him 10's of millions of dollars.
This is a very clear breach of the constitution and therefore a breach of his oath of office. This is yet another impeachable offense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I had a little bit of hope too at one point. I mean he was a democrat a few years ago. He obviously doesn't actually believe in the hardline republican policies. But once he started packing his cabinet with right wing ideologues and giving his family important positions it became clear that his goal was just to benefit himself. And also that he was too dumb to be able to find profits for himself without screwing over the whole country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Circular logic.Best is best. Sheesh false-equivalence guy doesn't even bother to explain what they mean then they come up with circular logic rather then a more important definition of it.
You defined best as most able to win. I showed how being able to win doesn't mean you aren't a dumpster fire of a candidate. Best in this context would mean doing the most good with the office. Who will improve the country the most. Who will help the most people.
Can't provide proof for your claims. Push the burden of proof.
The overton window of the democratic party has shifted massively. Most of the candidate's platforms are copying left wing ideas. That is proof the window has shifted. AOC has millions of followers. There are millions of people who want to hear what she has to say. She advocates for left leaning ideas that go along with this shifted overton window. Do I claim she is solely responsible, no. But if millions of people are listening to what you have to say and you are advocating for the newly popular position, than to argue she is not having an effect seems foolish.
Please show me an example of a politician that I don't consider politically effective.
You said that being politically effective was passing legislation. There is very little positive legislation getting passed. By your definition then, all politicians are politically ineffective because none of them are succeeding at passing positive legislation. And yet you only want to apply that to AOC.
Amy Klobuchar a politically effective politician enacted a bill as of October 16 2019 at the same running for presidency. What is AOC's excuse again?
I checked your link. that was a simple resolution. It does not have the force of law. It is for authorizing the use of an atrium. You really think that is evidence for being politically effective? School councils pass more useful motions than that.
Created: