Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
That sounds like something that should be easy to cite.
Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.
This needsto happen!
Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
O.o
Who wouldn't want a debate between a Socialist-Old-Fogey vs. a Capitalistic-Old-Fogey?!??!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
That sounds like something that should be easy to cite.
Damn! The first time he has a good idea (on his own end) and he chickens out of it. Seriously though he could of gone a long way to sabotage Clinton by directly courting Sanders voters and thier percieved (real or not) marginalization. All he would of had to do is debate Sanders and refrain from using ad hominem as a form of debate. Sure he would of been crushed by Sanders but when has something like that ever hurt Trump? Its not like Repubicans are going to choose somebody else in November.
I guess he could offer angry grandpa a job in his administration lol. That would really blow people's collective minds.
Then again I favor multiple party administrations, espeically either the VP or the Secretary of the State being from another party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 17:36:49
I think both Sanders and Trump are pulling heavily from people who are torqued off with the "business as usual, status quo” establishment in DC.
Sure, they are on opposite sides of the line, but they have a bit in common. If Trump can convince Sanders followers that he’s going to shake things up in Washington, he might be able to draw them away from Hillary.
BrotherGecko wrote: Damn! The first time he has a good idea (on his own end) and he chickens out of it. Seriously though he could of gone a long way to sabotage Clinton by directly courting Sanders voters and thier percieved (real or not) marginalization. All he would of had to do is debate Sanders and refrain from using ad hominem as a form of debate. Sure he would of been crushed by Sanders but when has something like that ever hurt Trump? Its not like Repubicans are going to choose somebody else in November.
I guess he could offer angry grandpa a job in his administration lol. That would really blow people's collective minds.
Then again I favor multiple party administrations, espeically either the VP or the Secretary of the State being from another party.
Is Trumpo capable of refraining from ad hominem attacks?
Is Frazzled capable of not shouting at snot faced kids to get off his lawn?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.
Um... Bernie doesn't need to do that... everyone knows Trump is a "loudmouth bullying weasel clown".
Since Trump has openly encouraged Sanders to go 3rd-party... raising Bernie's stature like might make that option more attractive. You know this will be bigtime TV rating...
So while Trump agreeing to a debate with Sanders while Hillary ducks one will hurt her... what remains to be seen is whether the BernieBros give Trump any credit for this, and votes "not-Hillary" in the General. Not likely... but, what's the harm for trying?
of course Trump wants Sander's to go independent, it would split the Democrat vote down the middle almost.
Welcome to Presidential Survivor alliances are made, enemies are made, who will win ?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
This isn't a right-wing conspiracy—the FBI will unravel it all
Running for president this year, after her abortive 2008 effort against Barack Obama, has not worked out quite as planned for Hillary Clinton. This was supposed to be her year, at long last. After enduring a quarter-century on the national stage—including tough years by the side of her gifted but scandal-prone husband—2016 finally lined up as Ms. Clinton’s best shot at moving back into the White House, this time with her in the Oval Office.
That outcome is looking less likely by the day. First, Hillary can’t manage to finish off Senator Bernie Sanders, despite his far-left politics that until recently resided quietly on the fringe of the Democratic party. They are fringe no more, and Bernie’s sincerity and authenticity offer an appealing contrast to the often awkward and stilted Ms. Clinton. This summer’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where Mr. Sanders will show up with legions of adoring fans who display a passion altogether lacking in the ranks of Team Clinton, promises to be quite a show—maybe even a madhouse.
Then there’s the troubling matter of EmailGate, the long-running scandal that this column has covered in great detail. That Ms. Clinton and her senior staff misused email during her tenure as secretary of state has long been crystal-clear. Refusing to use government email for government work was a violation of policy, while Team Clinton’s routing of said emails through a private server, then putting classified information on it—including above top secret information from the Intelligence Community—looks like a violation of several federal laws.
Early denials from the Clinton camp tried to make the entire matter go away, insisting there was no “there” there. Once that folded in the face of massive evidence that something indeed had gone very awry with Secretary Clinton’s emails at Foggy Bottom, the excuses shifted to ones familiar to those who experienced the 1990s. Everybody does it. It’s not really a big deal. Above all, this is politically motivated. These false accusations are the machinations of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Such dodges held water for months among Hillary fans, aided by parts of the mainstream media which, long accustomed to running interference for the Clintons, continued to do so, attempting to muddy waters that to those familiar with laws and regulations on the handling of classified materials are actually decidedly clear.
That all fell apart yesterday with the release of the long-anticipated State Department Inspector General’s special report on how Foggy Bottom handles email records and cybersecurity. A shoe has dropped for Team Clinton—a very big shoe—and there will be no going back now.
The Office of the Inspector General at State, as in all federal departments, exists to ferret out internal fraud, waste and illegalities. However, State had no real IG boss from 2009 to 2013, with an acting director heading up the office. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were in any hurry to find a permanent director for State’s IG shop. Now we know why.
The State IG report, weighing in at over 80 pages, is crammed full of bureaucratese yet paints an indelible and detailed portrait of things going very wrong at Foggy Bottom—especially under Hillary Clinton. It can charitably be termed scathing, and it leaves no doubt that Team Clinton has lied flagrantly to the public about EmailGate for more than a year.
That the State Department’s IT systems were a mess for years was hardly a secret, and the IG report makes painfully clear that State has had a difficult time transitioning into the electronic age. Several recent secretaries of state used email in a manner that would be judged inadequate, and perhaps improper, by today’s standards, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who served under President George W. Bush.
That said, only Hillary Clinton simply refused to use government email for government work—she repeatedly denied requests from State security and IT to use state.gov email—and she systematically dodged federal regulations on electronic communications and records preservation by setting up her private email server of bathroom infamy. Damningly, while several former secretaries of state cooperated with the IG in this important investigation, Ms. Clinton refused to.
As secretary of state, Ms. Clinton attempted a novel experiment of trying to avoid using any information systems that create records that can be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The IG report includes painful details, including how she flatly refused to use state.gov email for anything, ever, citing privacy grounds. State IT was concerned because Ms. Clinton’s work emails—all being sent via her clintonmail.com address—were winding up in the spam folders of State officials. Important information was not getting where it needed to go. She needed to use official email for official business. Except she refused.
What was so important, so sensitive that Hillary had to dodge FOIA altogether? Clearly protecting her private life—whatever that might be—was valued more highly by Ms. Clinton than actually heading the Department of State.
Then we have the repeating warnings from State officials about the incredibly vulnerable nature of her ramshackle private email system from any cybersecurity perspective. These, too, were blown off by Ms. Clinton and her staff, despite several hacking efforts that staffers were aware of. Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who illegally accessed Ms. Clinton’s email during her tour at Foggy Bottom, has just pleaded guilty, and there can be little doubt that hackers more adept than he penetrated Hillary’s communications.
Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would have had no trouble accessing Ms. Clinton’s emails, particularly when they were unencrypted, as this column has explained in detail. Yet Hillary was more worried about the American public finding out about what she was up to via FOIA than what foreign spy services and hackers might see in her email.
What she was seeking to hide so ardently remains one of the big unanswered questions in EmailGate. Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation for financial misdeeds, specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation.
That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information. That certainly would be something Ms. Clinton would not have wanted the public to find out about via FOIA.
As is their wont, Hillary’s loyal defenders are denouncing the State IG report as yet another “nothingburger,” adding with customary conspiratorial flair: “there are some real questions about the impartiality of the IG.” In this take, we are supposed to believe that the head of State’s IG office, appointed by President Obama, is a clandestine GOP operative.
Such escapism masquerading as hot takes won’t work anymore. Even The Washington Post, hardly a member of the VRWC, has conceded that EmailGate is a certifiably big deal, and “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server.” Its editors went further, issuing a blistering statement castigating Ms. Clinton’s “inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” They minced no words: “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.”
Although Post editors were at pains to state that Ms. Clinton had not broken any laws with her gross negligence at Foggy Bottom, the issue remains open. The FBI is investigating that complex matter now. As this column has previously reported, Hillary’s “unclassified” emails included above top secret information about undercover CIA operatives serving overseas as well as extremely sensitive NSA reports about Sudan—all information from special access programs that’s supposed to be tightly guarded.
What sort of impact those compromises will have on the investigation into EmailGate remains to be seen. We won’t know until the FBI submits its findings to the Department of Justice, probably this summer, with a recommendation to prosecute (or not). The key figure in this whole matter is Patrick Kennedy, a longtime Clinton protégé and State’s undersecretary for management (hence his nickname, “M”), who oversaw the department’s IT and security offices. Mr. Kennedy is widely believed to have enabled Hillary’s irregularities—and apparent illegalities—with email and ran internal interference for her when questions became loud and frequent. The FBI will want to unravel this all.
Hints are now emerging that Ms. Clinton’s neglect of basic security may have damaged more than her political reputation. A new report suggests several U.S. counterterrorism operations went awry thanks to Hillary’s slipshod communications security. This serious accusation is unsubstantiated yet plausible, given how easy it would have been for foreign spies to access Ms. Clinton’s email—as well as how much classified information she and her staff routinely put in “unclassified” emails. Counterintelligence officers will be investigating EmailGate for years, searching for clues about clandestine operations that went wrong, possibly due to Hillary’s IT misdeeds at Foggy Bottom.
For now, Team Clinton has plenty of problems to deal with. Their proffered excuses—that everybody does it, it’s no big deal, it’s just a fake scandal ginned up by the VRWC—have been blown apart by the State Department itself. If Hillary wants to be our next president, she needs to come up with better answers to what she was doing with her email—and why.
So far, Bernie Sanders has treated EmailGate with kid gloves, refusing to go after Ms. Clinton with gusto on the issue. Donald Trump will show no such reticence. What the State IG has revealed plays directly into Mr. Trump’s #CrookedHillary narrative. Large swathes of the public have never liked the Clintonian view that rules are for little people—not Bill and Hillary or their friends. Ms. Clinton’s misconduct as our nation’s top diplomat, including compromising our national security in order to hide her private deals, raises serious questions about her fitness as commander-in-chief. We can be sure The Donald will ask them.
Again Whembly, we know you have a hard on for anything remotely smelling of Clinton conspiracies, but could you please put the long stories in spoilers.
On topic, what is new in this news story that didn't come out yesterday that didn't seem to have tanked her run?
Edit: thanks!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/26 21:56:03
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again Whembly, we know you have a hard on for anything remotely smelling of Clinton conspiracies, but could you please put the long stories in spoilers.
Uh... it was already spoilered. o.O
On topic, what is new in this news story that didn't come out yesterday that didn't seem to have tanked her run?
Edit: thanks!
That IG report completely destroys whatever excuse there is for HRC...
A) She claimed she turned over all work related emails and merely destroyed her "yoga routines" and "Chelse's Wedding Plans." That's straight up a lie. The IG found work emails she did not turn over that were found by other means.
Hillary did not turn over her emails as the law requires, nor did she maintain them, as the law requires. Thus, she at least broke the Federal Record Act laws...
B) She compromised national security recklessly. Her and her staff's very own emails document two "attacks" on her unsecure server. Not to mention all the various TOP SECRET emails on her unsecured server. The very *act* of having it on her server is, itself, illegal.
C) Interestingly, of her 26 aides, only five answered the IG's investigative questions... Among those refusing to answer questions are Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, Human Abedin, and of course HRC herself.
In sum - Her private email account and server broke the rules, which those rules were created to comply to specific laws.
This report simply states the belief that HRC and her staff broke federal laws.
I think our streams were crossed with the spoilers.
Fair enough. But what is new that didn't come out yesterday? Were you not paying attention to yesterday? Have you not been reading the 10,000+ emails released constantly since July or so of last year?
Whembly, I have to hand it to you though even though you don't have a dog in the fight, you are still grabbing the bone, you junkyard dog, you. Silly goose.
Which federal laws were those and why are they not being prosecuted (here is where you can't have it both ways and say Obama administration). See the thing is the rules are not laws (at least the ones in the dos) and if they were, each head of each Dept gets to decide the bylaws in each Dept. (When not overseen by congress or the pres.). to put it another way "anything that was released by our Dept. Has been deemed non secretive by the head of our dept." Which was Clinton. where she could get into trouble, legally, is from outside emails being sent and forwarded by her. I agree it still doesn't look good, but November is a long way away with lots of Trump in the meantime.
On a related note, I heard on a conservative talkshow the other day that the Clinton camp might have some horribly damaging dirt on Trump and are just waiting until the convention is past to release it. Evidently, Ryan knows about it and is why he is hedging his endorseMent. What in the world could that be that hasn't been already mentioned? It can't be the fact he raped his own wife, that is pretty old news.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 23:02:07
Gordon Shumway wrote: Which federal laws were those and why are they not being prosecuted (here is where you can't have it both ways and say Obama administration). See the thing is the rules are not laws (at least the ones in the dos) and if they were, each head of each Dept gets to decide the bylaws in each Dept. (When not overseen by congress or the pres.). to put it another way "anything that was released by our Dept. Has been deemed non secretive by the head of our dept." Which was Clinton. where she could get into trouble, legally, is from outside emails being sent and forwarded by her. I agree it still doesn't look good, but November is a long way away with lots of Trump in the meantime.
More than 1500 instances of email where classified that were transmitted through HRC’s secret server and then retained on said server. Each of those instances are a violation of 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 1924, with both statutes declaring violations to be felonies.
And these were BORN classified... none if this BS spin that they were 'retro-actively' classified.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
That's the federal law in question with respect to retetion... It covers all federal agencies. Each individual agency, must then implement rules and policies for all employees so that they're in accordance with the law. The IG reports states that these rules have been violated, which is another way stating that the law was broken.
EDIT: Even Andrea Mitchell (!) is calling BS to some of the spin:
On a related note, I heard on a conservative talkshow the other day that the Clinton camp might have some horribly damaging dirt on Trump and are just waiting until the convention is past to release it. Evidently, Ryan knows about it and is why he is hedging his endorseMent. What in the world could that be that hasn't been already mentioned? It can't be the fact he raped his own wife, that is pretty old news.
I'm sure they have something to that effect.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/26 23:54:32
And to put in the daily parlance (trump speak) whatabouit? Without an actual indictment (notice the soft spoken language of legalese of the actual report), and until an actual FBI indictment happens, nothing will come of it (I'm not saying it it shouldn't). I just don't see the legs of it in our political climate, it's too minutiae. (Have you seen the legs on trumps wife) Too beltway. (Have you seen the legs on trumps daughter) Too boring (sad, but true). Chelsey might be a nice girl...what do her legs look like? Did you see that a deaf person won some sort of dancing competition? My brain hurts with the mundanity of life right now. Time to paint space marines! And vote! Vote! VOTE, what are those Property Brothers building?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 00:46:48
Breotan wrote: Apparently it's been pretty reliable in the past at predicting a winner before the State actually begins tabulating votes. As for the why, I suppose that depends on the questions the people doing the polls ask and how accurately they track the answers.
Sure, exit polls have been a fairly strong indicator, not perfect but good. But they're also good at lots of stuff outside of figuring out who's going to win on the day. Such as finding out what sort of people are voting for each candidate, and why they're voting for them.
Nevelon wrote: Sure, they are on opposite sides of the line, but they have a bit in common. If Trump can convince Sanders followers that he’s going to shake things up in Washington, he might be able to draw them away from Hillary.
I think this line about 'shaking things up in Washington' is so stupid it really makes me worry.
First up, I don't think there's ever been a point in US political history where at least a couple of major candidates in the primaries weren't promising to shake up Washington. Running on an outsider message is a big part of the political orthodoxy.
But second and more importantly - it doesn't fething mean anything. "I'm gonna change stuff" doesn't actually mean a damn thing. What matters is what you're going to change, and how you're going to change it.
I mean I know you're convinced the email thing is the most awful scandal ever, and you know what, I'm not even going to bother debating that. You believe what you want to believe.
My question is on your conviction that this actually has some kind of electoral impact. For it to matter it needs to be a matter of interest to people who weren't already committed Clinton haters. So just ask yourself, how many people do you know who like Clinton, but are passing around stories like this? How many times in political conversation does the email scandal come up, among people who don't already hate Clinton?
That should give you a pretty good indication of how much this, like Benghazi, has any real impact on the voting public.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 02:19:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I mean I know you're convinced the email thing is the most awful scandal ever, and you know what, I'm not even going to bother debating that. You believe what you want to believe.
My question is on your conviction that this actually has some kind of electoral impact. For it to matter it needs to be a matter of interest to people who weren't already committed Clinton haters. So just ask yourself, how many people do you know who like Clinton, but are passing around stories like this? How many times in political conversation does the email scandal come up, among people who don't already hate Clinton?
Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: And to put in the daily parlance (trump speak) whatabouit? Without an actual indictment (notice the soft spoken language of legalese of the actual report), and until an actual FBI indictment happens, nothing will come of it (I'm not saying it it shouldn't). I just don't see the legs of it in our political climate, it's too minutiae. (Have you seen the legs on trumps wife) Too beltway. (Have you seen the legs on trumps daughter) Too boring (sad, but true). Chelsey might be a nice girl...what do her legs look like? Did you see that a deaf person won some sort of dancing competition? My brain hurts with the mundanity of life right now. Time to paint space marines! And vote! Vote! VOTE, what are those Property Brothers building?
whatabouit?
Seriously?!?!?
Just think about this... information were compromised by her. Those information provide cover and/or blackmail materials for our adversaries.
You'd want a compromised politician as President?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 02:28:53
Does she got pretty hair? If not I don't care much. The FBI has not made their recommendation yet (let's not get our undies in too much of a bundle). And yeah. Seriously. Me and you have been the only people to comment in the thread in the last twelve or so hours. Not that we are a real demographic or anything, but nobody really cares. Nobody will care about anything for another three months. Then everybody will care. And we won't want them to.
Maybe non voting Australian guy wil come along and talk some sense.
Maybe uber liberal guy who doesn't want to be so described will come along with his input.
Maybe uber conservative guy who thinks he will vote for trump but has no idea what Trump stands for will come along.
But ultimately it's just you and me Whem, and my vote cancels yours. We vote against each other until the sun sets low. We tie. And then we rejoice naked on a hilltop of diases and daffodils. It will be Beautiful and we can rejoice and sing "trump ta li la Clinton, trump ti la do dae" and then we...wait politics, yeah. Ok then. Um. Go person who has my best interest at heart! Go McGovern! (Cause really, that guy did, I knew him after he was a political figure, and he did care).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 04:23:07
whembly wrote: Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
If the FBI recommends indictment.
And you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the GOP was going to make a big deal out of this - of course they're going to do that. Even when the investigations turn up nothing (PP, Benghazi) the GOP just holds more investigations. It's pretty much what they do these days.
Anyhow, you didn't answer the question I actually asked. Have you seen any interest in the issue from people who didn't already hate Clinton? That should tell you how much this issue is impacting the presidential race.
Of course, if there's an indictment everything changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: But ultimately it's just you and me Whem, and my vote cancels yours. We vote against each other until the sun sets low. We tie. And then we rejoice naked on a hilltop of diases and daffodils. It will be Beautiful and we can rejoice and sing "trump ta li la Clinton, trump ti la do dae" and then we...wait politics, yeah. Ok then. Um. Go person who has my best interest at heart! Go McGovern! (Cause really, that guy did, I knew him after he was a political figure, and he did care).
That whole post was such a beautiful thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 05:57:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Who is Rich? Should I thank the guy for putting my daughter through college or shiv him for screwing me over my entire life? Such difficult decisions. I will have my daughter shank him with her diploma.
He wil die gradified..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 08:48:28
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
We have the discussion about "fair" tax rates all the time. It always boils down to the fact that "fair" is a subjective idea that varies with each individual. Some people think some tax brackets should have higher rates but nobody wants their own taxes to go up. Some people want the govt to do/spend more but everybody always pays the smallest amount of taxes they legally can. Everyone is free to pay more taxes to the govt but I've never seen an example of a rich person, especially a rich politician that voluntarily pays a higher rate because doing so is more "fair."
Campaign ads aren't meant to prompt meaningful policy discussions they're meant to motivate party bases, reinforce party differences (real or imagined) and get the electorate worked up over partisan wedge issues in the hope of increasing turnout and that's just the ads that aren't outright mud slinging negative ads.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
In a society where rich people's heads are being put on poles, poor people's eventually end up there beside them, unless you wish to ignore the recent events in the Middle East, Africa, and Mexico.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
Those millionaires in NYC can send as much money as they want to the IRS or NY state. Anyone can choose to pay more in taxes. All you have to do is write a bigger check for your tax return. If they want to pay more taxes there is literally nothing stopping them from doing so. They can also encourage they state and federal representatives to propose and vote for new tax laws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 13:57:03
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
This really isn't a hard concept to understand: if you have 1 million, you stand to lose more from the state collapsing than if you have nothing. You are thus gaining more from society than someone that is poor, and should thus contribute more.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 14:10:31
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
