With All the Information out, Do you believe Trump should be President again?

Now you're just being rude. If you posted any links they weren't obvious. You stated "The first number, which I am used to counting forward, from the video's start, is here . . . ." If the word "here" is a hyperlink it doesn't work.

I'm not going to play your game of making your argument for you. If you have any specific point to make from the hearings make it.

 

And none of it will be used to try and actually solve any of the problems we face today.
Most of my day right now is spent on that objective. Except here, where it's a waste of time.
"Debasement of the opposition" has pretty much been the majority of your posts, and you haven't a clue that is so.
You can't get off the post. Your loss.
You're off my screen.

 

Unless there is a problem with your display, your charge of rudeness from me, is baseless.

Here is a link, to my post, which includes a big box, in the middle, with a picture of the Capitol building, marked PBS News Hour, "WATCH LIVE: Jan. 6 Committ..."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...resident-again.604643/page-14#post-1073789581


Here it is, again:


Do you still not see it?

If you do see it, now, I will remind you that only 2 hours, of the over 4 hour video, are the actual hearing, which I have given explanation, to aid your easily locating.

 

I saw the video, but you seemed to indicate that with the highlighted word "here" that you were providing a specific link.

Once again, make a point. I'll address it -- if you stop with the rudeness. Otherwise, we're done here.

 

A lot of taxes are lost during bankruptcy, and we have a whole bunch of companies teetering.

 

The man below, with the help of Vladimir Putin, was the Republican choice for President in 2016. He currently is the leader of the Republican Party. He is the leading Republican for the Presidency in 2024.

Republicans are expected to win control of Congress in November.

CNN reports, "During a December 2019 Oval Office interview with then-President Donald Trump, Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward asked whether his bellicose rhetoric toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had been intended to drive Kim to the negotiating table."

“No. No. It was designed for whatever reason, it was designed. Who knows? Instinctively. Let’s talk instinct, okay?” Trump said. “Because it’s really about you don’t know what’s going to happen. But it was very rough rhetoric. The roughest.”

Trump then instructed his aides to show Woodward his photos with Kim at the DMZ. “This is me and him. That’s the line, right? Then I walked over the line. Pretty cool. You know? Pretty cool. Right?” the President said.

The American President going to Kim in North Korea was complete embarrassment for the United States.

Trump thought it was cool.

Trump gave Woodward the classified letters from Kim.

“And don’t say I gave them to you, okay?” Trump told Woodward.

"Trump shares his views about the strongmen he admires – including Kim, Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan," CNN.

Trump declared himself the “president of law and order.”

Regarding his speeches, “I get, I get people. They come up with ideas. But the ideas are mine, Bob. The ideas are mine. Want to know something? Everything is mine. You know, everything. Every part of it.”

Concerning a highly classified weapons system, “I have built a weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before. We have stuff that you haven’t even seen or heard about. We have stuff that Putin and Xi have never heard about before.”

The [Republican] Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday [4/21/2020] reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

“I like Putin. Our relationship should be a very good one. I campaigned on getting along with Russia, China and everyone else. Getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing, all right? Especially because they have 1,332 nuclear f***ing warheads.”

Trump, along with Hershel Walker and Dr. Oz, represent the Republican idea of political leadership!

Don't forget to vote.

 

YOU are the one that brought it up.

So, were YOU just inanely ranting then?

 

I am not going to be forgiven for pointing out the obvious and for some reason you actually think I expect to be. Sorry, I don't need to be.

Your delusions approach those of Trump's. I see why you support him.

 

We are talking about a former president and what is the only circumstances that would disqualify a president from running again. That information comes from the Constitution.

 

I fully understand that but the OP was all about a person's OPINION on whether he should run again. If they want to see him run and win, based on what is already known about him.

As such, you need to learn to express yourself better.

This was my question and your reply:

This OP was about people giving their own personal opinions on whether they would like to see Trump back as president.

My opinion is based on the constitution. Or do you prefer someone just pull one out of their ass?

Given that you stated that your opinion is based on the Constitution, I gave that sarcastic reply to your post. You personally have no opinion on whether he should run again and be your president again? Let the Constitution decide what happens to your life and your family?

 

Why are you personally offended over a deserving Hillary critique?

 

Just following Alinsky who said openly accuse your opponents of doing the devious things you are trying to do.

 

That’s it in a nutshell!

 

Overthrows are not court challenges. Hillary did finally concede after her temper tantrum on election night -- a tantrum so bad she could not even address the large crowd of he supporters she invited to her celebration. Vociferous clamoring for impeachment began the day after the election. The Washington Post headline on inauguration day called for impeachment. There was a massive organized protest march on the Capitol the day of inauguration. Congress started calling for impeachment the day they took office which continued for five years, and strongly objected to and challenged the electoral vote count. If you think that is a peaceful transfer of power you got one more think coming.

 

Not in the least. I simply stated factually that congress has no constitutional authority to conduct a criminal investigation, in response to another post.

 

It makes perfect sense that the top 5% of earners account for 50% of unpaid taxes, considering that they PAY 60% of all income taxes. The bottom 20% on the other hand, pay virtually nothing in federal income tax. They don't have much that is left unpaid because they don't have much if anything that they are required to pay.

 

So, now you understand why they'd look into the higher brackets. Their incomes also include more hard to assess variants, which is why some of it is not paid.

 

I understand that the data you provided means that the bottom 95% accounts for a greater percentage of what is owed versus what they pay than does the top 5%.

 

No. Top 5% accounts for 50% of uncollected money, which makes them the low hanging fruit.

 

Is this supposed to refute my prior statement? Because it does NOT. You are asserting that the top 5% gets away with more unpaid because some of their income is harder to calculate, but the numbers actually say they are not getting away with more on a percentage basis which throws a monkey wrench in your assertion.

FWIW...I am not interested in whatever tangent you are talking about in regards to whom should be investigated? How did that come up in this thread about Trump being president?

 

Did you try back-tracking few posts to find out?

Someone stated very correctly that money doesn't come out of thin air, and I pointed out that they plan to collect unpaid taxes, which does not come out of thin air.

 

You are asserting that the top 5% gets away with more unpaid because some of their income is harder to calculate, but the numbers actually say they are not getting away with more on a percentage basis which throws a monkey wrench in your assertion. I am replying solely to that assertion.

I do not care about whatever other off topic tangent you now want to discuss, I simply wanted to point out the above misnomer.

 

Yes, that is factually correct.

% doesn't matter when we are talking about how to recover $600B hard cash in unpaid taxes. It doesnt matter what % of their income it is.

 

Even if we ignore the reality from my prior point which shows that by percentage they have less rather than more unpaid versus the lower 95%, the above is still not factually correct. The premise is flawed. The only way for something to be counted as an uncollected tax, is that it already has to be determined as owed. What you are describing is a situation where it is not determined or unclear what is owed by virtue of their tax return's complexity. That is an entirely different subject.

 

Ok, but obviously the estimate is based on their analyses on how much unpaid taxes they discover using the current audits vs how many audits they could do if they had the needed resources. Even if half of that $600B is collected, its would still be a huge addition to revenue (almost half of military spending)