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

If the topic is solely where is the most efficient place to try to collect more tax revenue, then I would 100% agree that logically you would bear far more fruit from the higher earners. What I was arguing was the process of how you got there.

I am a logical person, and yes, of course it would be most efficient to dig deeper into the lives of the high earners if generating revenue is your goal. I would also apply this same logic to policing. Yes, of course you are going to do the most invasive policing in the areas that have the highest crime which in most cases just so happens to be inner city ghettos that have a very high percentage of black residents. Similarly, it makes sense to pull the young man out of line at the airport for further screening versus the 90 year old woman. A lot of people on the left would call that racial profiling or just flat out racism, ageism, etc. I call it logic.

To me, you either accept both premises or you reject both. It is either OK to target based on probability or it is not.

 

My post had, and this thread has, nothing to do with the supporters of any candidate. I had been saying nothing about my hypothetical mob, threatening Republicans, with Biden as President, other than that I was sure that you would naturally expect the President to address it, promptly. If he'd not-- presuming you were a voter who was open minded towards any candidate (which you assert, at the end of your post, that you are not)-- I had said that I was sure you would see that as, at a minimum, unforgivable negligence, by the person in office (not unforgivable of the crowd, necessarily).

So your view is completely centered on your own, immediate concerns, and ignores the good of the overall society. While I do not think there is anything unusual in that orientation, that is the real pity, as I find that narrow perspective to be terribly short- sighted. Nevertheless, given your feelings about vaccines, I realize this is a top issue for you, and thus that any examination of other issues, such as a particular candidate's attempted coup, do not carry enough weight, to change your mind, or your vote.

 

Thanks for the reminder. I had fallen behind, in my replies (& am still 4 short, after this one, of getting caught up, aside from any new replies I receive, in the interim). I had, earlier begun my response to your post but, if you recall, you mentioned a bunch of different issues/presented a host of arguments, so that addressing them all, will take time (which bumped the completion of my post, answering all your points, to the bottom of my list). Would you prefer, if it speeds up your getting some reply, that I respond to your post in a piecemeal fashion?

 

Or that they are already carrying the rest of the nation?

Cheating is one thing- gouging because the voters think the rich have no right to the money they earned is another.

Every dollar less than an equal share of the total expense of government that you don't pay- on one somebody else pays for you. That is a SUBSIDY, because the services of government benefit everyone.
In addition to paying far more than their equal share of cost, they are also penalized in other ways. If you have a higher income- you did not get any covid checks. If you are on social security but still making a good income- you are paying income tax on your social security.

I don't think the people who think they are paying excessive taxes have thought past getting out of their own, and that means sticking it to someone else. Naturally, someone outside their bracket. How dare the people already paying the large majority of your share dare object to paying more of it? Then- they don't seem to realize that government spending will consume every dollar it can get and still borrow more- there is no frugality, no relief for one when they collect more from someone else. They want you to think that- but the history says it ain't gonna happen...
It helps to understand the way taxation is already being done. Did you ever hear the simple explanation of taxes explained by beer?

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

I don't blame Hillary for the crowd that blocked the freeway leaving me stranded in Hollywood for hours. They were dumba$$es long before she came along. There is nothing hillary or trump said that a reasonable person could translate into a call for rioting.

There is nothing I said that a reasonable person could translate into what you posted. (In bold) You can ask and I will tell you. If you ass-u-me, well .... you know.

 

I didn't "get there", that is simply what they plan to do regardless of what your "logic" tells you.

And sure enough, there is a higher number of police in high crime areas. Who told you there isn't?

 

These were your words, to which I was replying:

Doofenshmirtz said: ↑
Sure, the reps <Republicans> would tell people who to marry, throw people in jail for smoking a plant, and force their beliefs on women with unwanted pregnancies. Neither of those abuses of power affect me personally. Dems tried to force me to consume a pharma product, deny second amendment rights, and take my hard earned money and use it to poison people.

I will not likely be voting for a rep, but there is zero chance I would ever vote for a Dem again

Did I misinterpret what you had meant, by "zero chance?" Are you now saying, that if you believed it had been Trump's intention, in 2020 and/or in early 2021, to overturn the will of the people, from the Presidential election-- you do accept, that Biden was the legitimate winner?-- that you would vote for a Democrat, even if that meant, for Biden?

 

You are the one labeling it a "criminal investigation", which it is NOT.

 

Take your time and do whatever is easiest for you.

 

You are not aware of the debate over more aggressive policing tactics in high crime areas being derided as racial profiling? Thats a pretty ciommon issue but perhaps I assumed you are more of an academic than reality has now revealed.

My bad.

 

Sure, some cities are adding even more cops to high crime areas. You think such conversation meant there wasn't already more cops in high crime areas vs low crime areas? Whether or not some call it racial profiling is irrelevant. There ARE more cops in high crime areas.

Come on man. Use common sense.

 

Yes you did. You took a few factors and translated it into "completely centered on your own, immediate concerns" If paying high taxes created a thriving, healthy society, I would vote D every time. Results show the opposite. I have an open mind, but not open to words and promises. Results are all that matter.

Medical tourism renders abortion laws useless. Marriage used to be a big deal.Sharing a bed or having a child without being married used to carry stigma. Most of their overreach can easily be avoided. I did smoke pot when it was illegal. I never had trouble getting it and was smart enough to smoke it in private.

The overreach from the Dems, on the other hand, cannot be avoided. Half of my hard earned money goes to the government. Second amendment rights are severely crippled here in liberal-land. While things are improving, there was a time when I would be a felon for taking my gun out of the house while it was a misdemeanor if someone came into my home and stole it. I never voted for fewer paramedics, LEOs, or healthcare workers. Refusing to consume a pharma product did not please the crown, so the same people we called "heroes" for showing up before the product was available, became "anti-vaxxers and grandma killers"

I did not vote for either of the creepy, elderly sex offenders.

Dems have produced results that help trump emerge as the lesser of evils. These egregious abuses of power affect society. Not just me.

 

Just to clarify (even though it seems picky, it is not) Trump made no attempt whatsoever to overturn the will of the people. What he was fighting for was to correct the vote count which reflected much more than the will of the citizenry.

 

His only basis for thinking the count was wrong, and needed "correcting," was the fact that he lost. No one, has ever produced any evidence of the contrary.

This might seem my being "picky," to you, but it's not.


To make your statement, about Trump never trying to overturn the will of the people, I can only assume that you have not spared 2 hours of your own life, Rod, watching the final Jan. 6 Committee hearing, to be truly able to be sure, that the reason so many believe that Trump did do just that, is not anything other than simple partisanship (even though there are many Republicans-- like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, for example, but I could go on with a prestigious list-- as well as now former Republicans, who also see the truth that has been blatantly laid out, by the known facts). Your refusal to even consider this evidence, in truth, speaks very loudly to it being your own, partisan feelings, which prevent you from accepting the obvious.

 

There is evidence galore, just not provable in a court of law or even enough time to put it together for a court. Trump himself gave an impressive itemization in his letter to the Jan 6 committee, but that would not pass muster in a court.

 

I had meant, by asking if I'd misinterpreted your giving a 0% chance that you would ever vote for a Democrat, that there actually still was anything that a Republican could do, to disqualify them, in your mind, as being worse than Democrats. Your answer showed that I had not been mistaken about your closed mind, i.e., already decided and unmovable position, regarding this.

So, what you are objecting to, or pointing to, as my error, is my characterizing your view as based on specifically just what are your individual interests, and ignoring those of the larger society, as if not really connecting the two. While you still end up citing a lot of your own, particular concerns--

-- I will, nevertheless, acknowledge the distinction, you wish to make, that you believe these issues, which are deciding factors for you, and for many others, are also, more important to the overall society, than if a Party no longer believes in the principles of democracy.

Since all of the "abuses of power," you cite against Dems, who accept election results, at least allow for you to truly register your objections, through voting, so that change requires only that a majority of the population shares your view, on these matters-- I am not going to go through them, individually, but I'm sure you are aware that there are many who hold a different opinion on all of these issues, than yourself, from gun regulation to Covid vaccination (which was never mandatory, btw-- though some people believe that it should have been)-- whereas one's complaints to any government which does not run free and fair elections, will be falling upon deaf ears of political leadership, I therefore strongly disagree with your assessment, that this is not a far worse abuse of power, and so with your feeling that, because you would rather have your minority view, in certain matters, hold sway over the majority opinion on them, this would be something for which it was worth sacrificing the foundational principle, of our government.

 

If it is insufficiently provable, then why do you seem to accept it, as fact? And how does this justify the things Trump did? Do you not support having a society founded upon law? If you do, that implies that, when the law makes a ruling, and one cannot prove it in error, that one need accept that legal ruling, even if one doesn't like it. If, just because a person believes, without being able to prove it, that something is unfair, that justifies whatever they do, to try to "correct" this, we would no longer have a law abiding society.

Incidentally, if the vague & unsubstantiated claims, presented by Trump, qualify in your mind, as "evidence galore," I'd love to hear how you describe the evidence presented at the final 1/6 Committee hearing. Of course, I can't, because you haven't bothered to inform yourself of this information, by watching their relatively brief, and densely packed, presentation.

 

Fair enough. Which abuses of power are acceptable is irrelevant. When you support one, you support all.

 

Sandy Shanks said:
With full employment, substantial job growth, and robust spending, the Biden economy is on fire. Inflation is a by-product of prosperity. To change that, unemployment must increase causing less spending. That will result in lower prices. It is called a recession.

Why Americans as a whole are so negative about the economy, and why they think the Republican Party with its history of recessions is the answer is a mystery. The news today causes more bafflement.

ABC reports, "The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits fell last week and remains historically low even as the U.S. economy slows in the midst of decades-high inflation.

"Considered a proxy for layoffs, applications for jobless aid have remained historically low.

"Some recent employment data suggests the job market may be cooling slightly, but overall, it remains the healthiest part of an economy that’s been shaky all year due to high inflation and Russia's war in Ukraine.

"Four-decade high inflation has prompted the Federal Reserve to keep raising its key interest rate, which is currently in a range of 3% to 3.25%. A little more than six months ago, that rate was near zero. The sharp rate hikes have pushed mortgage rates up to 15-year highs, and made other borrowing costlier. The Fed hopes that higher interest rates will slow borrowing and spending and push inflation closer to its traditional 2% target.

"Fed officials have warned that the unemployment rate will likely have to rise as part of their fight against rising prices, and the most recent government jobs report likely snuffed out any hope that the Fed would pause rate increases when it meets in early November."

Higher unemployment results in less spending. Prices go down due to less spending and that is called a recession.

That must be what Americans want. Vote Republican, they are good at recessions.

In the meantime, we have the Biden economy. Hiring in September added 263,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped from 3.7% to 3.5%, matching a half-century low. Record low unemployment combined with job growth.

What's not to like?

As is their custom, Republicans will avoid the factors in this report. They are eternal pessimists, and they like recessions.

 

There was very little in vote counts that need to be adjusted.
And many states did several vote counts to get votes counts corrected. It didn't make much of a difference

And he wasn't wanting vote counts to be corrected. He wanted Ga, to magically find enough votes to give him a 1 vote victory there.
He wanted states where he lost to throw out votes.
He was attempting to thwart the will of the voters. Which he lost by a landslide, according to his own measure.

 

So just based on opinions all you will end up getting is a big fat NO from Trump haters and a big fat YES from Trump supporters. That is what makes this thread useless. We have tons of threads on this forum that have already covered this.

 

Except that in the OP I asked people to explain their choice. Few have, but that serves the purpose because lack of explanation means they are blind by choice and bias (which we all know to begin with). Nonetheless, we now have clearly defined numbers.

31 Trump would be disastrous to our country
18 Trump would be great to our country
10 Trump would be neither.

Given that our country is a Democracy, the disastrous to our country wins overall and almost 2-1 between disastrous and great.

To me, everything is measured in numbers and that was the purpose of the OP. I consider it a successful OP.

 

I haven't accepted it is incontrovertible fact but it certainly passes the reasonable suspicion and probable cause criteria. AFAIK only one high court has made a ruling in any of Trump's suits. That was the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania who ruled that they, the court itself, did not err in their election process dictate. Trump has done nothing -- as in zero, nada, zip, zilch -- illegal or untoward.

I have watched some of the Jan 6 hearings but I have zero rational interest in following and assessing what clearly amounts to nothing but a purging kangaroo court. If the committee followed the rule of due process SCOTUS said they have to they would have cross examinations and would not doctor the evidence they do display. If they were carrying out their constitutional authority to investigate things only for legislative purposes they would look into everything and anyone -- maybe starting with Pelosi -- who had any direct connection with the Jan 6th mayhem, and not limit their witnesses to those that absolutely fully believe Trump was the driving force behind the mayhem.

 

A tape of Pelosi, during the Capitol assault, was part of the evidence shown, in that final, 2- hour hearing which, as I've said, did a much more comprehensive job, tying together the many strands of this. Your comments come across, to anyone who is familiar with even some of this material, as very uninformed.

 

Did anyone ask her what she did to prepare for a massive and maybe unruly crowd. I did not see that. Was she questioned by the committee at all? Or was it just a (of course doctored and edited) tape shown for show? (just one small example)