patrick.net

By the way, Russian Collusion was dropped like a hot potato after Mueller looked like a dotard at the last hearing.

So we pivoted back to White Supremacy.

WookieMan says

HEYYOU says

@ 5

NO!
And neither should scum of the earth Republicans that get handouts & subsidies.
REAL MAN HEYYOU never got a dime of tax dollars. Only losers do.

Notice how I've learned to be a narrsicist ,like Trump & his ilk, The difference between them & me is they are piles of deplorable shit.

It's a harsh view, but I don't think anyone should be able to vote if they're not productive and at least paying some federal taxes.

It's an extreme view, but I don't think you should be allowed to vote how to spend other peoples money, mine included. I'm not some millionaire, but pay 5 figures annually in federal taxes. Why should some white trash guy in Alabama or ghetto ass black guy in Chicago have ANY say over the money I'm forced to pay?

If you pay zero and receive any non-healthcare related (or SS) handout, just be happy. You could be dead o...

This is a very Romney way of looking at the country. Lowly peons in the military don't pay taxes because they don't get paid very much, but they pay in blood for their country. I think they deserve a vote.

SunnyvaleCA says

I'll say it again: People's votes should count proportionally to how much they pay taxes, with people paying zero or negative taxes getting a weight of 0.

More power to the rich, assuming they actually pay taxes?

LastMan says

SunnyvaleCA says

I'll say it again: People's votes should count proportionally to how much they pay taxes, with people paying zero or negative taxes getting a weight of 0.

More power to the rich, assuming they actually pay taxes?

Well, that's just it. To the extent that "the rich" shield themselves from taxes, they'll also have their vote counted less. Wookieman, above, suggested you get a vote proportional to ceiling(log10(taxes)). i.e.: however many digits was in your tax bill, that's how your vote is weighted. So, someone paying $50,000 (5 digits) in taxes would have a vote weighted 5x and a person paying $15 (2 digits) in taxes would have a 2x weighted vote.

I think that this would put a major damper on increasing taxes (and hopefully on increasing spending), as the people paying the most taxes would have the highest vote power and also be most likely to want to reduce taxes. Sure, they would change tax law to favor themselves at the expense of others. But then the next time around, those "others" would have the upper hand. Hopefully, an equilibrium would be reached.

SunnyvaleCA says

LastMan says

SunnyvaleCA says

I'll say it again: People's votes should count proportionally to how much they pay taxes, with people paying zero or negative taxes getting a weight of 0.

More power to the rich, assuming they actually pay taxes?

Well, that's just it. To the extent that "the rich" shield themselves from taxes, they'll also have their vote counted less. Wookieman, above, suggested you get a vote proportional to ceiling(log10(taxes)). i.e.: however many digits was in your tax bill, that's how your vote is weighted. So, someone paying 50,000 in taxes would have a vote counted at 5x (5 digits) and a person paying $15 in taxes would have a 2x vote.

I think that this would put a major damper on increasing taxes (and hopefully on increasing spending), as the people paying the most taxes would...

We have about $23 trillion in Federal debt. That amount is just as much the welfare Ho's as it is the rich defense contractor's. I think she should get a vote because, arguably, she doesn't benefit from the spending as much as say a defense contractor, who has to pay income tax. Even more the banker who loaned the money, who now gets interest income from the debt that yes he now has to pay federal income tax on the earnings.

Heraclitusstudent says

I don't see what's smart about causing outrage by insulting people.

I don't personally like the tactic or think it's good for the country with regards to the way we interact with each other. But at the same time, he's shown a lot of people asses on both sides of the aisle by doing it. In the end I'm not sure if what Trump is doing is any worse than the previous status quo of outright lying and not ever getting called out for it. And yes, Trump has lied.

I don't differentiate between lying and insults really is my main point to what you're saying. They're both bad personality traits. So I guess that's why I see less of a problem with it. If I was having a rough day and looked like shit I'd rather have someone just tell me instead of lie to my face. Basically tell me I look great and then tell every else "that guy looks like shit" in private.

SunnyvaleCA says

They are US citizens, so... no.

I was referencing the illegal immigration situation, not the recent "squad" comment.

mell says

Time to stop being obtuse on purpose.

He does this a lot. I believe he’s trolling when he does that. He can’t possibly be that stupid.

I think government workers shouldn’t get a vote. You wanna work for the people? You shouldn’t also get to be your own boss and vote for your own pay raises.

Quigley says

I think government workers shouldn’t get a vote. You wanna work for the people? You shouldn’t also get to be your own boss and vote for your own pay raises.

Sounds like an invitation to have breakfast with navy Seals. They may disagree with that point of view.

Misc says

Quigley says

I think government workers shouldn’t get a vote. You wanna work for the people? You shouldn’t also get to be your own boss and vote for your own pay raises.

Sounds like an invitation to have breakfast with navy Seals. They may disagree with that point of view.

Everyone will disagree with a weighted vote. Doesn’t make it wrong. It’s basic logic. Don’t care about seals or whales. You’re more likely to get killed in Chicago versus doing a tour anywhere outside the US right now. This is statistically true.

You’re clearly military. Congrats. No one actually cares and you know it. We’re in the most peaceful time in world history if you account for war deaths per capita. But hey, the seals.

I don't like a weighted vote, also, we can barely keep illegals from voting as it is, it would be hard to calculate.

Any skin in the game is enough.

If you made in excess of $15,000 in wages in any 2 of the past 4 years, you vote. You bring in your W2 and or tax return to register to vote, renewal every 4 years. If you didn't, you don't, unless you are military and/or over 65 years old.

What we should do is go back to having Senators selected by the State Legislature, which balances out Federal power. States will be sure to nominate Senators that fight against unfunded mandates in budgets. "Oh, the House wants to tie Federal Grants for State Highway Funding to Drinking Age? BOOM! Rejected! Back to the House!"

Heraclitusstudent says

WineHorror1 says

Do you, yes or no, think taxpayers should be forced to pay for ANYTHING given to illegal aliens?

Humm... Mostly I don't.
Doesn't mean Trump is not a troll.

Don't you really mean his detractors are the trolls since that's the gameplan they had the day he was elected? He's just fighting back. If you cry all day long, how do you find the will to live? It's quite remarkable.

What we should do is go back to having Senators selected by the State Legislature

+1000. The House of Representatives represents the voters, the Senate represents the States.

HonkpilledMaster says

I don't like a weighted vote, also, we can barely keep illegals from voting as it is, it would be hard to calculate.

HonkpilledMaster says

You bring in your W2 and or tax return to register to vote, renewal every 4 years.

You solved the problem in your own post ;)

I like the idea of a weighted vote because it would give more power to the most people that are actually providing for everyone, while not giving too much power to the super rich. If you can't provide for your family and need welfare, I don't want you influencing anything. If you're super rich paying $100,001 in federal taxes, you only get one more vote than the guy paying $10,001 in taxes.

It will never happen, but I'd like to think it would result in better elected officials. As it stands, the upper income folks have way too much influence regardless of party affiliation. This would likely eliminate the big donor factor overnight given their weighted vote is statistically limited for an election.

It's tough to argue with someone who thinks that Kim Kardashian is so superior to him that she deserves more votes than him come election time.

Misc says

It's tough to argue with someone who thinks that Kim Kardashian is so superior to him that she deserves more votes than him come election time.

There's really no argument here. Kardashian statistically adds more to the economy monetarily than I do. Has zilch to do with superiority. Realistically she'd only get 1 or 2 more weighted votes compared to my 5 even though she's paying far more taxes, hiring people, buying more shit than I could ever dream of.

You think trailer trash Tony on food stamps and not paying any federal taxes should have an equal vote to myself or yes, even a Kardashian? (Side note - this is by no means an endorsement of what she does and how it influences our society)

Yes, everyone deserves a vote and it's not a perfect idea. Those able bodied people getting handouts are ALWAYS going to vote for someone that will keep the status quo or promise to give them more. This is a large chunk of the population. As horrendous as Kardashian and many other media types are, they are actually working and producing something regardless of how awful it is. And the fact is, it levels the playing field and gives the middle class (most Americans) more say in our politicians who are currently just bought with truckloads of money.

And to wrap it up..... it will NEVER happen anyway, so it's not really an argument going on, just a thought on what could make the voting system better. There's probably some hole in my logic that I didn't even think of.

So Trump doesn't only troll the media. I could understand if this was a "media strategy".
However he trolls other countries, like Danemark, insulting its head of state.
Also insults to other US politicians are now common.
Why have a discussion when you can trade insults? That's always a great way to work with people.
This guy throws tantrums like a 4 years old.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why have a discussion when you can trade insults? That's always a great way to work with people.
This guy throws tantrums like a 4 years old.

I don't understand his plan with Greenland. That one surely looks stupid at this point with the way he handled it. It's not some small undertaking to have a visiting foreign dignitary, let alone the POTUS and then bail 2 weeks before the the trip over something that was highly unlikely to ever happen anyway (purchasing Greenland).

Even in real estate, his supposed profession, pissing off the seller before meaningful talks is rather stupid. Yes the US has leverage with printed cash, but that's all we got if Trump actually wants to purchase Greenland. Denmark could stop NATO payments tomorrow and would be as safe as they were yesterday. It was really an odd move and I'd be interested to see someone come up with what his strategy actually was. Any yes I understand the strategic value of Greenland and also the potential resource value of Greenland. Doesn't mean it will just be ours because Trump wants it.

However, the Danish PM wasn't very nice. "Big Countries don't buy small countries anymore". That was kinda condescending.

Trump is the remedy for 8 years of bowing and scraping and apologies by Obama. It's simply getting back to even steven not to take any disrespectful crap. Even from the Danes.

Greenland is a Danish protectorate, not a country. There has been talk of Denmark getting out of being responsible for Greenland since the end of the Cold War (actually, before).

Harry Truman also offered to buy Greenland. Is #HaberdasherManBad?