"
"
Russia is not run like the U.S. is (duh). Russia is run more like a colossal Mafia state, where everybody has dirt on everybody else and backroom wheeler-dealing, under-the-table bargains, and paranoid compromises are the norm because nobody has an idea who has dirt on them, how much dirt is out there, and what might trigger somebody into outing what they know and taking you down.
So in other words, just like the US. Are you not paying attention?
"
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that Trump is not a Russian intelligence asset, or even someone who likely knowingly colluded with Russia. He's too fundamentally stupid, and also far too much of an attention whore and public braggart for any self-respecting spymaster worth the title to want anything to do with. Remember, they call it clandestine activity for a reason, and if there's one word no one would ever apply to Trump, it'd probably be 'Clandestine'.
Or 'smart'. But hey, minimize political junk right now. Anyways.
There's nothing partisan about it. Nobody who ascends to the office of President of the United States is stupid. Nobody. The only two possibilities are "genius" and "just shy of genius." Do you really think the competition within the primaries is so devoid of competitiveness that actual idiots get to win? I mean, I'm not saying IQ is necessarily the main thing political parties care about, but regardless of whether the hierarchy is corrupt or clean, you don't see nincompoops at the top of the pyramid. Take your pick -- either mob bosses, or just plain old bosses. One or the other, or a mix of both.
To draw an anology from Dragonball Z, the mistake you're making here is that you assume that if someone hides their powerlevel then that power must not exist. You believe criminals in high office who claim naivete, when that naivete is the only defense keeping him (Bush) or her (Clinton) out of prison. You laugh at a politician who self-limits his vocabulary when speaking to a large rally of ordinary Americans, as if that isn't good strategy -- then, if that politician is Trump, you are successfully trolled by his boasts of having a great vocabulary ironically made under same low-vocabulary conditions, despite such boasts being demonstrably true through years of Twitter dominance.
Hell, I actually believe that Bush was relatively stupid for a President, but I still put him in the 120s in terms of IQ. I actually felt confident I was significantly smarter than him. Not so with Obama, and I hate Obama.
"
As the article states, if Trump really was a Russian intelligence plant, he would not be treating Putin with deference and respect right now. He'd be ripping Putin a new asshole, pulling his usual fire-and-brimstone rhetoric shit, threatening military action, all the usual Trump jazz. The fact that he's not doing any of that and never has is deeply suspicious, and everybody knows that. Even Putin. If Trump was secretly a Russian plant, he'd be doing a piss terrible job of concealing that fact right now.
Solid reasoning.
"
Well. What makes more sense to people here? The idea that Trump is somehow a knowing, in-on-it Russian intelligence asset doing a very good job of being literally the worst spy in the world since Austin Powers...or the idea that a shitty businessman known for making expedient short-term decisions at the cost of long-term viability and who's legendary for being a cheat, swindler and general ne'er-do-well assbag pulled some shady shit in Russia and is now caught between a rock and a hard place, knowing that the Shady Shit he pulled back when nobody would really care is now hanging over his oh-so-precious Presidency and his legacy for the future like a guillotine blade?
Obviously the second, Captain False Dichotomy. Sheeit, if that's a way to make arguments I could "prove" Catholicism is true by contrasting it with Mormonism.
"
Frankly, I'm kinda stunned the idea hasn't come up more often, come to think of it. Of course Trump pulled some illegal bullfuckery in the past somewhere and somebody's got dirt on him they're holding over his head. Nothing in the world makes more sense than a shitty businessman who won high political office he never really expected to suddenly being caught by old shady-ass decisions he never expected to have to face again.
That such things would exist isn't that big of a stretch; that such a thing would remain a secret up until this point, is. The former predicts things like the Billy Bush tapes and Stormy Daniels; the latter would presume that we shouldn't know about such things yet, contrary to the evidence thus far.
In all seriousness, could you think of any time in history when the release of truths damaging to the President of the United States would be better rewarded, either financially or in terms of prestige?
You think presidents are smart? then where are all the astro physicists, mensa members, even a jeopardy 5x winner if you like TV stars like Trump or people otherwise recocoginzed as smart? Nah you can quote dagonball Z I'll quote my grandad - "tell me your network I'll tell you your networth" - in otherwords it's about appeal. Trump appealed to many so he won. I wouldnt be least surprised if Oprah or Kylie Jenner was president next due to massive network.
Politicians are at best venal fucks who say whatever it is you want to hear is why smart people will never get elected. Obama was probably in the 120s IQ wise tho. Thats above avg but not a genius or anything.
Trump is dumb AF. I still support him because I like low tax
(no tax is preferable but he's better than any democrat would be - they were the party of slavery in the 1860's and now)
Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Jul 21, 2018, 2:07:30 AM
|
Posted byAim_Deepon Jul 21, 2018, 1:20:13 AM
|
|
I was thinking about my last comment a bit. If you think about it taxes are undemocratic. No taxes would be pure democracy. You spend on what you want. Cant get anymore democratic than that. So when democrats drone about taxes "on the rich" it's really saying we are not democrats at all but fascists.
To me even 8 cents is too much when I buy a diet pepsi from 7/11
To quote a "good" democrat
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Jul 21, 2018, 2:39:50 AM
|
Posted byAim_Deepon Jul 21, 2018, 2:33:11 AM
|
"
"
"
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that Trump is not a Russian intelligence asset, or even someone who likely knowingly colluded with Russia. He's too fundamentally stupid, and also far too much of an attention whore and public braggart for any self-respecting spymaster worth the title to want anything to do with. Remember, they call it clandestine activity for a reason, and if there's one word no one would ever apply to Trump, it'd probably be 'Clandestine'.
Or 'smart'. But hey, minimize political junk right now. Anyways.
There's nothing partisan about it. Nobody who ascends to the office of President of the United States is stupid. Nobody. The only two possibilities are "genius" and "just shy of genius." Do you really think the competition within the primaries is so devoid of competitiveness that actual idiots get to win? I mean, I'm not saying IQ is necessarily the main thing political parties care about, but regardless of whether the hierarchy is corrupt or clean, you don't see nincompoops at the top of the pyramid. Take your pick -- either mob bosses, or just plain old bosses. One or the other, or a mix of both.
To draw an anology from Dragonball Z, the mistake you're making here is that you assume that if someone hides their powerlevel then that power must not exist. You believe criminals in high office who claim naivete, when that naivete is the only defense keeping him (Bush) or her (Clinton) out of prison. You laugh at a politician who self-limits his vocabulary when speaking to a large rally of ordinary Americans, as if that isn't good strategy -- then, if that politician is Trump, you are successfully trolled by his boasts of having a great vocabulary ironically made under same low-vocabulary conditions, despite such boasts being demonstrably true through years of Twitter dominance.
Hell, I actually believe that Bush was relatively stupid for a President, but I still put him in the 120s in terms of IQ. I actually felt confident I was significantly smarter than him. Not so with Obama, and I hate Obama.
You think presidents are smart? then where are all the astro physicists, mensa members, even a jeopardy 5x winner if you like TV stars like Trump or people otherwise recocoginzed as smart? Nah you can quote dagonball Z I'll quote my grandad - "tell me your network I'll tell you your networth" - in otherwords it's about appeal. Trump appealed to many so he won. I wouldnt be least surprised if Oprah or Kylie Jenner was president next due to massive network.
Oprah and Kylie are both utter geniuses. So I wouldn't be surprised either.
Your dad is correct though: networking is the game. Your mistake is in assuming that idiots are good at networking. There's actually no contradiction at all between my position and your father's, assuming you've accurately summarized his in one sentence. I'm not saying that intelligence is primary here, nor could that reasonably be inferred from my previous comments; I'm saying intelligence is a prerequisite to the things that are.
You need to watch some more Scott Adams, my friend. Trump is a master persuader, a real-life The Mule, with a skill set few can match (of which raw intelligence is but one of many facets). Bush and Obama weren't dummies either.
It would behoove you to stop believing that people you view as evil or corrupt or misguided are somehow intellectually beneath you. Indeed, there's not much scarier in this world than a genius who has made only a single important error in judgment.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 21, 2018, 3:23:01 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Jul 21, 2018, 3:19:17 AM
|
"
Democrats dont really pay taxes hear me out - first of all any rich democrats are not really working ...
that's mostly valid for all those rich folks, capitalism only manages to put those into the light who got rich by real life achievements, but the wholw bulk got ric by either not paying workers the full compensation for things they created (they stole), they manipulated the system's loopholes (they did crimes) or they simply inherited the whealth.
"
Like actors or lawyers preying on others hard work or sportman or worst gov workers.
with gov workers you mean the biggest unemployment cache america ever created, it's army?
yea, they could be reintegrated into making more useful things like rebuilding americas infrastructure with the gov money they get. trump kindof promised that and is on it's best way to reduce americas occupying presence in the world to the (diminishing economic) degree of power it has now.
"
Anyway 95% of democrats are takers who want free shit and vote for party of free shit which is dims by in large.
money comes from the gov, not wondering people gathering where it's created.[/quote]
"
IMO we should not have income taxes at all tho.
Why penalize successful people?
if you have a business and are succesful you're mostly building on the foundation the state laid out for you in advance. which is infrastructure and people's education and a system to allow you to own something in the first place. you pay for that.
"
Reward fail get more fail.
Penalize success get less success.
that's mostly valid but there is a fine line between that and terorizing the disadvantaged(being handicapped, born dumb or born into a poor environment, etc).
in most developed states there is a social contract between citicens, you leave some people their whealth and success and try to behave in compensation to the state granting you an outcome that allows you to do a normal life.
you break that social contract, you get more crime and civil unrest. if, like in other states where they have free guns it makes the shit hit the fan. rightfully so.
and that's the point where the right wings, despite all their hate towards the government start to love it again: when it comes to pure suppression of people.
they should be honest and have their privately paid armies suppress people (instead of taxes they would pay their armies directly) and we would be back to feudalism in 3.2.1...
offline
|
Posted bycronuson Jul 21, 2018, 4:47:12 AM
|
"
"
Reward fail get more fail.
Penalize success get less success.
that's mostly valid but there is a fine line between that and terorizing the disadvantaged(being handicapped, born dumb or born into a poor environment, etc).
So punish those responsible for creating the disadvantage. For example, I'd add a hair follicle drug test for the mother (of minimum 4 inches, so roughly 7.8 months) taken at childbirth for eligibility for child tax credit for that child. This would cut down on children being born physically handicapped, born dumb or born into a poor environment.
Keep that hair uncut, mothers-to-be.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 21, 2018, 5:19:47 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Jul 21, 2018, 5:16:10 AM
|
|
@cronus
The USA didnt even have income taxes until the 1920s and managed fine. No blind deaf old people starved in the streets. Find me one case. Belive it or not people are not cruel and give to charity who takes care. I bought an employee $15,000 in implant teeth once (former meth addict who was clean and I wanted to help him) so I sent him to Mexico for a mouthful of teeth and didnt have to at all.
The issue is people stealing it from you and misappropriation and undeserved riches taxes/big gov leads to. The gov makes people cruel. They say "gov" should take care of all these homeless and dont give and nothing gets done.
Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep on Jul 21, 2018, 12:00:33 PM
|
Posted byAim_Deepon Jul 21, 2018, 11:47:09 AM
|
|
The single WORST event in US history was adding a fed income tax. No contest. Gave the government a black check to be irresponsible with and the politicos a convenient new football to toss back and forth. You know it was touted at the time as a temporary measure? Kind of like those toll roads that have "temp" tolls that never go away; they just keep going up. :(
Censored.
|
Posted bykolyabooon Jul 21, 2018, 2:26:41 PM
|
|
I've always wondered why it is an income tax.
Let's say I was running a security business that focused on protecting property more than lives. Which of the following would make more sense as a rate plan:
1) I calculate the customer's income and charge a percentage of that amount
2) I calculate the customer's assets and charge a percentage of that amount
Obviously #2 makes more sense. So why is it that government levies an income tax instead of an asset tax?
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Jul 21, 2018, 3:24:22 PM
|
"
I've always wondered why it is an income tax.
Let's say I was running a security business that focused on protecting property more than lives. Which of the following would make more sense as a rate plan:
1) I calculate the customer's income and charge a percentage of that amount
2) I calculate the customer's assets and charge a percentage of that amount
Obviously #2 makes more sense. So why is it that government levies an income tax instead of an asset tax?
Because assets have already been taxed. Taxing twice means your system's bad. And no, just taxing assets is stupid as well and on so many levels I do not even want to go into detail about it.
Twitch: https://twitch.tv/artcrusader
|
Posted byArtCrusadeon Jul 21, 2018, 3:33:09 PM
|
"
"
I've always wondered why it is an income tax.
Let's say I was running a security business that focused on protecting property more than lives. Which of the following would make more sense as a rate plan:
1) I calculate the customer's income and charge a percentage of that amount
2) I calculate the customer's assets and charge a percentage of that amount
Obviously #2 makes more sense. So why is it that government levies an income tax instead of an asset tax?
Because assets have already been taxed. Taxing twice means your system's bad. And no, just taxing assets is stupid as well and on so many levels I do not even want to go into detail about it.
Taxing an asset multiple times isn't necessarily worse than taxing an income once. For instance, consider an asset tax of 4.1% annually versus an income tax of 22.5%. If income is converted directly into assets, then the tax is less for assets held 5 years or less, and more for assets held 6 years or more.
The total net worth of all US households in 2015 was $84.9 trillion. The same year total income was $15.5 trillion, from which the IRS collected about $3.5 trillion (22.5%). The change above wouldn't change tax revenues very much, assuming, admittedly incorrectly, that the tax changes wouldn't change economic behavior -- the real numbers would need to be somewhat different.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 21, 2018, 4:39:08 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon Jul 21, 2018, 4:24:38 PM
|
