When I was questioning whether my dislike of her was because she was a female I found I there was a long list of items. But you do make a point that she's been in the public eye so long that she has had a much longer time to accrue my dislike. All those little thing add up that for others I might not be aware. But I am aware, and I can't deny that they impact my dislike for her.
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Sure you can, because they're lying. They're saying things that they don't really feel/believe because they know that it will earn them goodwill from people who take their word at face value rather than examine it in comparison to their track record of aggressive tax avoidance. Buffet is the king of tax avoidance. He famously brags that his secretary pays more taxes than he does. So he obviously doesn't want to pay more taxes. Taking Buffet's word that he wants to pay more taxes is just... well... there you have it.
If Warren Buffet actually wanted to pay more taxes (he doesn't) he could easily just do so. A tax return for as complex finances as Buffet has is replete with elective deductions, which he could simply not claim if he really wanted to pay more. I'd dare say that Buffet's financial empire is structured precisely to avoid taxes as much as possible by taking full advantage of every deduction and/or loophole available.
Buffet (and anyone else) who claims they want to pay more taxes, while simultaneously employing every tactic available,( including claiming a bunch of deductions, hiring accountants, lawyers, bankers etc.), precisely to reduce their taxes is... in short... full of it.
When a billionaire says "I support tax increases" or "I think I should pay more taxes" or "People like me should pay more taxes" or similar... what they really mean is... "If Congress manages to pass a law that reduces or limits my deductions I will follow the law." That's it. They will continue to squeeze any and every deduction they can out of the system. They don't "support" tax increases, they are simply saying that they will abide by them, within the constraints of the law... which is empty rhetoric, because they have to do that anyway.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
The only alternative to raising taxes is reducing spending, but such a thing is almost physically dangerous. There are reasons elected officials always break that promise, if they bother to make it.
I bet if some outsider buffoon got elected president and started hacking regulations and departments, the unelected creeps in the government would attempt a coup. For instance, they might say he was a Russian agent and launch an extraordinary investigation. They'd lean hard on the press to spread and validate the notion. The press would carry it because the storyline would be, if not true, at least immensely interesting and profitable.
I think the most serious problem with the situation is that the press would be subverting its own social role in becoming a mouthpiece for a shadow government. People in the society at large would divide sharply along the line of those who believe the press and those who don't, purely as a matter of whom they support in the struggle to get the entrenched garbage out of the government.
I bet if some outsider buffoon got elected president and started hacking regulations and departments, the unelected creeps in the government would attempt a coup. For instance, they might say he was a Russian agent and launch an extraordinary investigation. They'd lean hard on the press to spread and validate the notion. The press would carry it because the storyline would be, if not true, at least immensely interesting and profitable.
I think the most serious problem with the situation is that the press would be subverting its own social role in becoming a mouthpiece for a shadow government. People in the society at large would divide sharply along the line of those who believe the press and those who don't, purely as a matter of whom they support in the struggle to get the entrenched garbage out of the government.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What has Trump actually done to threaten these entrenched interests, beyond general mis-management of the federal apparatus?
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Huh?
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
Towards balancing the budget, nothing. That highlights the hopeless scope of the problem I was describing.
Towards draining the swamp?
aug 2017 The federal government under Trump has 11,000 less workers
jan 2018 -16,000
apr 2018 -21,000
And for their part, the named deep state actors in the Russia fun have all been eliminated at this point, except of course for Mueller himself, whose existence works in Trump's favor as long as no evidence of collusion emerges. Ultimately, I think the Russia hoax has been a healthy emetic for the press. They no longer have any influence on half the US population. They've leapt into bed with government agencies, prosecutors, and gmen who are supposed to be the inveterate foes of an investigative reporter.
92% negative coverage of the president, and his approval ratings persistently oscillate around 45... for 2 years straight. No one is arguing anymore about whether or not there is bias. It's beyond that.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Reducing federal staff does not, in itself, constitute an attack on entrenched interests. In what departments have these reductions been made? At what levels? Has the power or responsibility of these departments been reduced, or are they just doing the same job with less staff?
These figures represent around 1% of total federal employees, and the third article you link indicates that even this meagre reduction mostly represents a redistribution of responsibilities from federal to local government, which indicates that these probably weren't positions very close to the beating heart of power.
What reason do we have to assume that this negative coverage isn't an accurate reflection of the administration's record? Is an administration entitled to a certain degree of positive coverage? If so, what level, and under what conditions?
Simply assuming that a commentator is biased because they say things you don't like is, itself, a form of bias.
Last edited:
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
What if a similarly adroit line of questioning, and similar requests for hard-to-obtain information, were turned against your investment in the idea that Trump is not actually threatening any entrenched interests, despite the way these entrenched interests are openly at war with him?
Like I said, these concerns are out-of-date at this point. When Weissman tells the Current Narrative Network they're going to do a pre-dawn raid on some private home with an overwhelmingly huge armed force, and the cameramen follow the SWAT team gleefully, like loyal dogs, and the people onscreen at the network can't restrain their savage sense of Stalinist triumph, it means that we're beyond bias.
Lexicus
Deity
Just curious, you support putting immigrants into those detention camps right?
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,496
if?
They'd even get federal judges to hand down guilty verdicts to some of the involved parties, and some of those parties to plead guilty.
This is just the silliest stuff, by now, acting as though there aren't mountains of evidence for his involvement with the Russians.
Just cut it out.
Last edited:
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
No, I don't. Would you support creating a barrier along the border that would prevent this humanitarian crisis, or is the potential for sly moral bullying more valuable to you?
Lexicus
Deity
Sly moral bullying? Your favorite President ever is engaging in a policy of literally locking thousands of people indefinietly in remote prison camps, yet it's the piece of criminal filth Roger Stone getting arrested (I assume that's what you were referring to anyway) that elicits a cry of "Stalinism" from you.
Meanwhile, as you know, what would stop the "humanitarian crisis" is for the United States to simply stop creating a humanitarian crisis, not a stupid wall.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
Yes. You oppose "my" idea for solving the problem decisively, and then you sanctimoniously blame "me" for the consequences of your successful opposition. Sly moral bullying, bad faith, whatever this crap is called.
[citation needed]
Lexicus
Deity
"Your idea" (which you actually stole from Donald Trump) isn't meant to "solve the problem decisively" and you know it perfectly well.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe he doesn't. As you point out, he stole the idea from Trump, and Trump is quite likely so poorly informed that he doesn't know perfectly well that the idea isn't meant to solve the problem decisively. He probably has no earthly idea what is meant to happen, or likely to happen. He picked up somewhere that something might happen, and he's just going with it.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
The quotation marks were meant to suggest that I wasn't speaking personally.
But you're assuming bad intentions that don't exist. Every problem with the US-Mexico border is based on the fact that it's porous. The drug cartels' existence is based on the fact that it's porous. A lot of the corruption and evil the gangs and traffickers inflict upon Mexico itself, controlling and murdering officials, is funded by their abuse of the border.
Trump wants it sealed. I would like it sealed. Most of his voters would like it sealed. Quite a few Democrats would like it sealed. A wall alone is useless, but would it be an important element of defense if the border were to be guarded and the cartels sunk? Yes.
- Status
