n8nrgim

There's a whole subculture about dating that could go with this. 80 percent of women only fight for twenty percent of guys. Really, incel culture has a lot to add... ya sometimes they go too far, but they gotta Lotta truth too

if you dont believe a word of it, that's just your bias. the government says it was critical and they talk about the subjects that were involved, which sound critical. i mean you might be right that it wasn't critical, but that's just you choosing to ignore what the government is signaling. your motive in ignoring it, could only be that you lack objectivity.

do you acknowledge that trump's behavior at least looks unethical? 

is there evidence trump was trying to make money off it? i read an article that said he was trying to have source documents so he can prove he's right when arguing with people... it was ego related. i guess i do suppose that that's a little weak for a reason for why he'd take all the documents though. 

i really dont know what he was trying to accomplish in taking all those docs. 

i wouldn't vote for the guy, but even i can relate to the MAGA, and have a little maga in me too. if i say 'fuck it let's watch the world burn', it's only cause i'm partly MAGA myself. except, i recognize it's not a virtue and can still think objectively... the virus hasn't completely destroyed my brain. 

this is my favorite definition of the term 'trumpanzee'

are you at least capable of acknowledging that trump acted unethically and irresponsibly? 

even if trump didn't commit a crime, are you capable of at least acknowledging that trump acted irresponsibly and unethically? i would guess that you would rather let your emotions dictate your views and want to rush to trump's defense, end of story. and of course as always add something that doesn't have anything to do with the issue. 

too bad the MAGAs are so bad at thinking objectively, where instead they let emotions dictate how they view political issues

cause i'm a hater

i'm sympathetic to the idea that trump was president, so he can declassify whatever he wants as he wishes. even on the stuff that it didn't matter if it was classified that he wasn't suppose to have, he was still the president. that's why i'm more on the side that it was a witch hunt on the meatier charges. but obstruction of justice is different... trump had very critical docs it sounds like, and when the government tried to get them back and fix the situation, trump evaded them and tried to hide and obscure things. for that, even if we concluded that trump didnt commit a crime,it still should have been a crime that deserved punishment. this is existential and critical information we're dealing with and trump acted irresponsibly. i think the only way a person could think he didn't do anything wrong, at least ethically, is if they are clouded with bias and can't see clearly. 

it might be better to do an analysis of joe biden v trump and the classified material biden had at his house and such.  that's the comparison the trumpanzees usually bring up. 

the bible says Jesus said some people will experience eternal punishment. i do still think though that hell can be temporary for some people, or like purgatory. I would think God wouldn't give eternal consequences for temporary misconduct, so I would think eternal punishment is only for those who eternally separate themselves from God. we do have free will, after all. or, if the possibility for eternal life for all is true, there will always be a stain on our lives for how we act, even if we are redeemed, a stain that could still be eternal even though we're saved. 

I also think God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like, you can't just keep eating a bunch of cake and not expect to gain weight. except, the consequences are spiritual when it comes to the ways of God. if you have low vibrations and are sinful, you will experiences low vibrations and consequences to sin, and a less fulfilled life. 

how do you view hell? is that an indication of conditional love? personally, i the way i handle it, is to say God loves everyone unconditionally, but that there are natural consequences to our actions. like you can't eat cake non stop and expect to stay skinny, only in a spiritual sense. 

God hates fags... thus, Best.Korea hates fags, too 

if God hates homos, does that mean it's fair to infer that you too hate homos? 

this thread is comical in how stupid it is. i know that wasn't the author's intent, though. 

how about left wing terrorists?

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

democrooks r libtarded amiright??

normally, people usually split constitutional interpretation into two camps, 'living constitution' and 'originalism'. living constitution means we can use our modern perceptions and values to determine what the text means, whereas originalism means we should only interpret the text to mean what was originally intended. 

a new version i've come across is 'dynamic originalism'. this means that the core principles orginally intended should be preserved, but modern changes in context can allow for a different application of the text. i think the new justice jackson on the supreme court follows this philosophy. 

so for example. originally, interracial marriage could be banned by law.  but, the original context was that interracial meaning was immoral or unbliclical or that black people were inferior. but, modern sensibility differs with that. only rarely do people think blacks are inferior or that it's all immoral or unbliblical. the core value of the bible, or morality, can still be a guiding light, even though the context is different. 

so what do ya'll think?

is this just a back door end run around the power of originalist thinking? i'm sure there's lots of examples where it would seem reasonable to change the application of text based on changing contexts, such as with search and seizure and probable cause etc. my guess is when you get into the weeds, it would become muddled or blurry if one were to espouse 'dynamic originalism'. 

if north korea wasn't always talking about killing other countries, maybe they could have more autonomy. it's like when i use to wonder why iran shouldn't get nukes... then someone pointed out to me, if these countries weren't so hostile it would be fair. but as it is, they can suck a dick. 

good well thought out arguments 

if you're not a teenager, you have the mind of one. if you have a degree in economics, it's from a shit university or you barely scraped by. i didn't graduate with a degree in economics, but i was an honor's graduate who got an A in a graduate level economics class from a competitive university. 

you have too many incoherent and ignorant points to respond to.  you're a lost cause. 

you didn't answer how old you are. you must be close to being a teenager, or at least you have the thought process of a teenager. out of touch with reality. 

you are proving you know nothing of how the rich avoid taxes. what i'm stating is a fact. they borrow very low interest loans so they can avoid paying taxes on capital gains and so they can make profit on the income they didn't realize by selling. you are just proving you have stupid theories and that you are ignorant. there's a thing called google.... go educate yourself. 

how old are you? that's one of the stupidest most touch with reality posts i've ever seen on this site.

taxing rich people, i mean very rich... would hardly change anything at all other than increasing tax revenue. someone like jeff bezos doesnt barely pays taxes because he has stocks and no realized capital gains. if he actually had to pay a tax on the things he buys through loans, it's super small fries compared to his wealth. i mean, even if he spent a hundred million a year from loans, which is on the high side for a billionaire, he's still paying only maybe 40 million tax tops out of his 100 - 200 billion wealth. 

a consumption tax is in addition to a sales tax. it's an attempt to tax the rich people's wealth, indirectly. just taxing the sales tax amount is very weak and ineffective at drawing money from them. it's only directed at rich people, in my way of doing things. 

"In that case, they'd be borrowing against assets they already have—accounting for the interest and taxes, they'd be borrowing significantly less than the value of their assets. This is not a net gain for them, because they'd be able to buy more by just liquidating their assets instead of borrowing."

rich people borrow because it is a net gain for them. they borrow at one percent interest a year, while they keep their money invested, where their investment increases at twenty percent a year. it's never a net gain for them to sell their assets, cause they then have to pay income tax on it, and they can't make profit if they sell the assets. 

we could just raise taxes on our progressive tax system. that might fulfill my desire for more taxes from the rich. but it wouldn't directly address people who go their whole life without paying taxes, or paying very little in taxes. to you it's about some ideal efficiency in our tax system not to go after them directly, not to tax things other than income... but the bigger picture is that everyone should have to chip in a more standard amount. if they just borrow money their whole life and never have income... they could get rich and never pay taxes. that's just unfair. i think u just need to be willing to think outside the box a little more. it sounds like you suppose progressive taxes, so it's a modest and logical step to support meager consumption taxes and wealth taxes. (and for rich people, a higher capital gains tax)

"They have to pay it back eventually or go bankrupt. For that, they need income, on which they will pay taxes."

id rather they pay taxes during their life. with your system, they could just borrow money their whole life and wait for their estate to pay it back when they die

billionaires probably aren't going to go broke. but either way, why not take tax from their consumption and wealth? what harm is there? if they go broke eventually, at least they helped support the government with meager taxes. these aren't huge things i'm asking for. most likely, they will either be just as rich when they die, or maybe a little more or less... still all the more reason they should have to support their government in the form of taxes 

the rich can borrow money their whole life and never pay a penny in taxes. why do you support this?  a two percent wealth tax is meager, and is only trying to get at people who pay little or nothing in taxes. why do you not support that? for some reason, you keep making bare assertions that you just dont like the idea of them paying anything other than an income tax... but you keep not supporting your arguments with philsophy or barely any reasons. why do you care so much about rich people who pay nothing in taxes? 

a person like jeff bezos can go his whole life without paying taxes. for some reason that you won't get into, you think this is just a fine outcome. you are not doing a good job arguing why we shouldn't try to get more taxes out of those who avoid paying taxes yet get rich. they're using loop holes. and on the wealth tax, why does it matter that they might lose it all some day? they might they might not. either way they should still be contributing meaningfully to the country. as it is, because of your vision, they can go their whole life without paying anything. you need to argue the philosophy better about why you care so much about rich people who dont pay much in taxes. 

my intention is only for the rich to pay a consumption tax 

why should the rich be able to use borrowing money as a loop hole to not pay taxes?

why do you care about saving them money? shouldn't we be more worried about the rich paying their fair share? you seem more worried about me making the rules different for the rich than everyone else, but why do you care to begin with? if we have a progressive system as our base, wouldn't our system be more consistent on those values, if we tried to get rid of all these loop holes? isn't it more fundamentally fair to make sure that the rich contribute to our society? the way it is, they could go most their lives without even paying taxes. that's ridiculous. 

i'm just calling it what it is, by dictionary definitions. a progressive system is where the rich pay a higher percent of tax than everyone else. or higher amount in general. and it's regressive when the rich pay less. that's just the dictionary definition. 

well, i'm kind of advocating a wealth tax and a consumption tax, and i'd even advocate an ordinary income tax rate on capital gains at for a high enough amount. i know i'm being scatter shot about my proposals, i'll have to reorganize them and reargue them later. 

according to you, our current capital gain taxes should be adequate as it is. but you are not doing a good job arguing why the rich should pay less in taxes than everyone else... why they should pay less as a percent than their secretary. why they should be able to use borrowing as a loop hole. you need to argue the philosophy of why we should be worried so much about the rich. 

your vision is regressive. optimally, rich people should pay a higher percent of tax on their income than everyone else. what actually happens is they pay less. even if we didn't have a progressive system, and only had a flat tax, they even avoid that tax too... they pay less than everyone else. that shouldn't be allowed to happen. yes it is punishing to have consumption and wealth taxes, but so what. the rich want to live here, they enjoy the benefits of our system... there's no reason a consumption tax and meager wealth tax is a bad thing. the alternative is they pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. that's just unfair. what i propose is a bare bottom request to help level the playing field. even with what i propose, they are still getting away with murder, and paying way less than everyone else. 

u r probably right, that the base wants culture wars, but if there's any hope in beating trump, everyone else needs to hope an optimistic alternative message might work. we'll call it a hail mary play, like the football play. 

rich people take a lot of the earth's resources to become rich. it's like a farmer of a giant farm insisting it's all his and he doesn't owe anybody else any responsiblity. it's only the rules of man that says that whole farm is his. in the real world, people would go plant trees and crops on that farm, and would fight the farmer to survive.  it's a basic social contract that we need to make sure the rich pay their fair share because of that abuse of wealth hoarding. rich people shouldn't pay less in taxes than their secretaries. a consumption tax is a good way to level the playing field, to avoid letting them use borrowing as a loop hole. 

this is all also why i suppose a wealth tax. that two percent tax on the wealth of rich people that elizaebeth warren supports....  sounds like a good idea to me. but that's another debate. 

instead of selling their investments to pay for their spending, rich people instead borrow money at super low rates. this causes them to not have to pay much in taxes. they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling. that's a big way the rich get by without paying much in taxes. we shouldn't be allowing that loop hole. they should have to pay a high tax bracket rate on the money that they borrow. 

overall spending isn't going up much, proportional to what it's been in the past as a percent of GDP, if you dont count social security and medicare. the reason spending keeps going up so much, is because congress is trying to pay back social security and medicare. it's not that all other parts of the government have gone run amok. so what are the republicans trying to do? they are trying to cut spending to the poor, and miscellaneous spending, to pay for entitlements. they're trying to give less food to poor people, to give more money to seniors. they shouldn't be doing that. what should be done, is that taxes should go up. compared to the rest of the developed world, we dont have much of a welfare state, and just looking at what benefits poor people can get... we just dont have much of a welfare state. compared the rest of the developed world, our taxes are low. granted, our bloated healthcare system and defense spending causes our overall (if you count the private sector too) spending to be similar to other countries, albeit we dont spend as much on welfare while overall spending is similar to other countries. so congress should cut into defense spending and healthcare spending (lowering medical reimbursement rates for example) to help pay for increasaed spending. but most importantly, the rich should be paying more in taxes, too.  it's not right that rich people pay less in taxes than their secretaries. 

trump is the king of culture warriors. he's the ultimate bully, he's an alpha male. folks like ron desantis shouldn't be trying to focus so much on trying out do trump on that turf, cause they'll lose every time. desantis, for example, got a lotta legislation passed, that doesn't have to do with the culture wars. he should focus on that... all these guys should be focusing more on concrete ways that they have improved people's lives, and to focus on their proposals for how they will continue to improve people's lives. 

the liberal in me thinks they dont focus on those kind of details, cause they are weak on the details that will improve people's lives. as is common these days, both sides of the political aisle wanna keep fighting culture wars instead of things that actually matter 

he might just be playing by the rules as they are. kind of like when a rich person thinks taxes should go up on the rich, but they dont voluntarily donate to the government when taxes aren't increases as they'd like. 

balanced budget. congress should set every item in the budget, except social security and health care, to be the same percent of GDP every year. like defense spending might be twenty percent of GDP, and it will stay that way every year even as our GDP rises.

the exception, is that congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis that deviates from this norm. by having this overall balanced budget approach, we will avoid the yearly debt ceiling fights that we see every year. those are risky, and they're not sustainable. 

of course, someone will complain that GDP shrinks during recessions. historically and practically, though, that's not a big deal. as was said, congress can always pass legislation on a case by case basis to deficit spend even more so. but just as importantly, though, is the fact that GDP doesn't shrink much during recessions, usually just a few percent. even during the great recession, GDP only shrunk 5 percent.... so, a 5 percent spending cut isn't that big of a deal. of course, during the great depression GDP shrunk 30 percent... so congress would need to use its case by case power to deal with that sorta situation, cause there are no good options during those times other than to deficit spend to stimulate the economy but maybe not too much, it's their judgment call. 

the reason social security and health care are exempted, are because those are expected to change over time, given the government has been borrowing against medicare and SS and currently is trying to pay them back and demographics change over time. the thing is, with these debt ceiling fights, republicans are trying to cut say spending on say food stamps, in order to have enough money to pay social security back. that's the way our accounting is structured. that choice shouldnt exist... social security should just do its own thing and rise and fall on its own merit. it shouldn't come at the cost of other programs, such as food stamps. forcing a choice between paying seniors more and paying poor people less (or giving less food to hungry people) shouldn't be a thing that politicians do. social security can be figured out on its own and congressmen will be forced to reckon given by 2033 the trust fund is going to run out of money and can only pay 80 percent of benefits. maybe taxes on the rich can go up on their payroll tax, benefits for the rich can be cut, retirement age can go up, maybe everyone can chip in a little more on their pay roll taxes. point, solutions are out there, but it shouldn't be intermixed with other governemnt spending. one of the biggest mistakes ever congress made was borrowing against social security and medicare. and on that point, healthcare spending needs to be tackled on its own just like social security, for many of the same reasons.  

good point. maybe i should have focused on the dems being more likely to help those who are struggling. 

u may be right, i dunno. 

???

maybe making politician pay dependant on them getting debt manageable is a good solution. i dont know how it'd work, but it's also a good starting point.