Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
President Trump President Trump

07-07-2017 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Don't worry! He's getting rid of the bad hombres too.

I'd probably regret my vote in their situation as well.....duh!!
No he is putting them in cabinet positions.
07-07-2017 , 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy
I've posted it once before, jackass.

Tangental connection to the thread? Are you ****ing serious?

They've been talking about the polls leading up to the election for the last several pages.

Jesus man, you're not even fit to be a mod's *******.
#triggered

Quote:
Originally Posted by BitchiBee
I've heard this trump is just unintelligent line from many people.

do you really think that its possible for a stupid person to beat the republican establishment that didn't want him, the democratic media that hates him, and win the US election?

hate trump supporters all you want, believing that trump is unintelligent is just completely not based in reality
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot
The majority of illegal immigrants who voted for Hillary certainly did.
Everyone who voted for Hillary voted against Trump you silly goose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox
God, this fighting **** is boring. Might take this post off my subscribe list. I know that's not a thread to concern anyone, but I had to vent after those 5 minutes of my life.
This post is also boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BitchiBee
its clearly self evident, stupid people don't accomplish great things like Trump has done
Apparently they do.
07-07-2017 , 01:46 PM
On the subject of being successful without working hard, this guy seems like a good example: My Own Private Basic Income

Quote:
My first big lucky break happened in 2009 when Georgetown University hired me as a philosophy professor on their campus in Qatar. Georgetown-Qatar, which is funded entirely by the Qatar government, has to pay an enormous premium to get faculty to agree to live and work in Qatar. I get paid three times as much as my wife. I teach half as many classes. Shes a full professor. Im only an associate.
So even then, dude wasn't working hard and making a killing. And now, he has a real estate business where his participation is as difficult as "giving his brother money":

Quote:
A few years before I left for Qatar, my brother returned to the Midwestern United States with a significant amount of money hed saved while teaching English. With that money, hed bought a couple houses, fixed them up, and rented them out. Although he made a very good rate of return, he had no more money to invest. He had less money because he was now teaching underprivileged children in a public school in South Bend, Indiana instead of teaching relatively wealthy people in Tokyo.

We were a perfect match. I had the money but not the time or skills. He had the time and skills but not the money.
Quote:
Owners do not have to be entrepreneurs. They dont even have to be competent. They can hire competent people to manage their money for them. The amount of 'entrepreneurship' in my story was miniscule. It amounts to this. I lucked into money. My brother knew what to do with it. I gave it to him. For nothing more than that, I never need to work again. Neither will my successors.
idk though, is he in the top 50% of professors and/or landlords? Hard to say if he's successful w/o that info.
07-07-2017 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BitchiBee
you've posted things said by trump that you disagreed with, I didn't think you'd tie that in with trump being stupid

do you think the things trump has said makes him look dumb because of the content of his speech or the fact that he uses a limited vocabulary and is quite often vulgar?
The content of his speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
They do polling at the state level. Am I missing something? I truly mean that, please explain.
What you're missing is the context of the conversation, in which it is argued that a national poll which had Trump ahead is more correct than national polls which did not.

A national poll is fundamentally unfit for predicting anything but the popular vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot
Most sources are saying ~0
Fyp
07-07-2017 , 01:52 PM
So no actual people convicted of anything like voter fraud. DoNot is the current verdict in the case of having cases of 'illegal voter fraud'.
07-07-2017 , 01:57 PM
A noncitizen (but legal resident), from Mexico, was arrested recently for illegally voting in Texas

...she voted Republican
07-07-2017 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
A noncitizen (but legal resident), from Mexico, was arrested recently for illegally voting in Texas

...she voted Republican
Yes, I recall that when it made news.

Okay so....

One.
07-07-2017 , 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
On the subject of being successful without working hard, this guy seems like a good example: My Own Private Basic Income
This is such a silly post and such an outlier I won't even bother dealing with it. Talk about lottery winners next, please.
07-07-2017 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
such an outlier
wil, what if I told you that even a pathetic schmuck like me has passive income from real estate investments similar to this guy's?

Do you think this is that uncommon? lol
07-07-2017 , 02:33 PM
And remember, wil literally didn't think it was possible to be successful if you worked <=40 hours a week hahaha
07-07-2017 , 02:47 PM
Great article, Goofy, about basic income, wealth generation, free riders, etc.

Quote:
3. We can get entrepreneurship without the enormous rewards to ownership we have today. Rewards were smaller a half century ago, but there was just as much entrepreneurship. What can I possibly have done in the seven years that I’ve been accumulating stuff to justify rewarding me and my successors with a perpetually growing stream of work-free income? In short, nothing. I do not exaggerate. I’ve studied the market as an economist and as a political theorist. I’ve lived it as a wage earner and as a business owner. It’s not just me and my wife. It’s how the economy works.
This, of course, is the real question. I believe the above is mistaken. The left, of course, believes it is correct, to generalize. I am sure there is real discussion somewhere on whether our system of private property/capitalism is really necessary to provide the progress/jobs/quality of life we have now.
07-07-2017 , 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox
This, of course, is the real question. I believe the above is mistaken. The left, of course, believes it is correct, to generalize. I am sure there is real discussion somewhere on whether our system of private property/capitalism is really necessary to provide the progress/jobs/quality of life we have now.
I don't think the author is questioning the nature of "private property", and you're not really giving liberals a fair look if you're just generalizing them all into literal communists. Generally, liberals rather question the deeply unequal treatment of wages and capital, and specifically in this article the author is mostly advocating for UBI. He sums this up at the end:

Quote:
We dont need to eliminate the market economy or property rights. We just need to realise that a lot of the income in the world today goes to the people who own resources and the stuff weve made out of them. Tax that unearned income and share it with everyone a universal and unconditional basic income.
Bolded is almost replying directly to your post, pdox.
07-07-2017 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
So no actual people convicted of anything like voter fraud. DoNot is the current verdict in the case of having cases of 'illegal voter fraud'.
Uno cases offered in the thread still. Pretty vast accusations happening for uno cases. Can I get a dos?
07-07-2017 , 03:41 PM
Sure, goofy, but, put your bolded and my bolded together, and what is he saying? What does the left/democrats want? It's beyond the article somewhat to give lots of detail, but reading the two statements together, I think the one I showed has to have some meaning in the sense of drastic alterations to private property/capitalism that could damage our future going forward. This kind of thing is really hard to prove, but I am talking about where we will be 200 years from now, or where we would have been now, if over the past 200 years we did not have the private property/capitalist system that we have had.
07-07-2017 , 03:44 PM
Tax capital gains the same as ordinary income.
07-07-2017 , 03:45 PM
The President of Western Faith, huh?
07-07-2017 , 03:47 PM
By your bolded, do you mean the section header for #3? I didn't realize you were highlighting it since it was bolded in the original article. I think the words following that bolded snippet ("We can get entrepreneurship without the enormous rewards to ownership we have today") make it clear he's not suggesting radical alterations to the nature of private ownership:

Quote:
Rewards were smaller a half century ago, but there was just as much entrepreneurship.
He's talking about, like, raising tax rates on investment income.
07-07-2017 , 03:51 PM
And, in the same quote goofy cited,

Quote:
We don’t need to eliminate the market economy or property rights. We just need to realise that a lot of the income in the world today goes to the people who own resources and the stuff we’ve made out of them. Tax that unearned income and share it with everyone – a universal and unconditional basic income.
How much? To what effect, how much does that reduce productivity?

The example of unearned income in the article is unrealized capital gains. The real estate hasn't been sold by the author. I wonder if taxing it includes taxing unrealized gains. If not, then there would be no change to the unfair situation that the author describes. So, it led me to believe (perhaps incorrectly?) that the author is somehow suggesting that unrealized capital gains should be taxed. That sounds bad to me, confiscatory.

The article doesn't explain the solution in detail, but am I far off?
07-07-2017 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
By your bolded, do you mean the section header for #3? I didn't realize you were highlighting it since it was bolded in the original article. I think the words following that bolded snippet ("We can get entrepreneurship without the enormous rewards to ownership we have today") make it clear he's not suggesting radical alterations to the nature of private ownership:



He's talking about, like, raising tax rates on investment income.
Posts crossed in the ether.

Guess I should have pointed out I was emphasizing the same sentence he used as a heading.

Anyway, just raising tax on investment income is less controversial. I described in the next post why I thought he meant more.

He also proposes universal income, which is more controversial.
07-07-2017 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox
The example of unearned income in the article is unrealized capital gains. The real estate hasn't been sold by the author. I wonder if taxing it includes taxing unrealized gains. If not, then there would be no change to the unfair situation that the author describes. So, it led me to believe (perhaps incorrectly?) that the author is somehow suggesting that unrealized capital gains should be taxed. That sounds bad to me, confiscatory.
I don't think this is accurate. If his real estate goes up in value, that is an unrealized capital gain, but I don't think that's what he's referring to. He's talking about the rent that people (indirectly) pay him every month.
07-07-2017 , 04:19 PM
Hmmm, ok. He described both, including describing unrealized capital gains at length, given the size of the article. That said, the rent is clearly central as well, and may be his main point. Isn't rental income already taxed at earned income rates? - Just researched very briefly. There are tax benefits, and it is complicated. So I don't know what he is really advocating.
07-07-2017 , 07:45 PM
Heh, so it seems these Raise By Capitalist Wolves dudes are just now finding out that There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch is not only wildly untrue but in fact almost the opposite of truth, in that the real deal is finding the freest lunch available and letting your cup runneth over.

Incredible.
07-07-2017 , 07:53 PM
I've estimated the amount of afternoon meals which occur without money involved is virtually unlimited.
07-07-2017 , 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lew189
Wharton tho.

And Bush Jr went to harvard and yale.

Going to elite schools says a lot more about what you were like in your 20s than what you end up as 50 years after the fact.

When people say he's stupid though I don't think many mean it in the sense that he's below the curve in verbal reasoning or any of the other commonly accepted metrics of intelligence. He's for sure above average. But that's a horrible standard to be holding up a president to when he's putting himself out there as the idea guy, as opposed to a humble civil servant who represents a political party with a shared vision.
07-07-2017 , 08:09 PM
Trump is below average.

      
m