New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

FOX has been right all along, which is one of the reasons

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There is no reason for me to waste the time looking for it through the three pages of your posts the search terms Trump Russians Hillary Emails brings up. If you didn't say precisely that (and I recall that you have) your many posts on the subject clearly puts you in the camp of those who do believe that his joke about the Russians maybe having her emails is evidence of his attempts to "collude" with the Russians to steal the election from her.

Lets make this easier - do you agree that Trump's campaign comment "maybe the Russians can find Hillary's missing emails" was just a joke (and not in any way "evidence" that he needed to be investigated) or not?
It was not the reason to investigate the possibility of collusion or conspiracy
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I never commented on that statement...so you must be the one trying to fool people.
Then do it now - was it just a joke, or a plea (subliminal or overt) for the Russians to interfere in the election to help him win?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
it was a joke...besides...the statement was about Hillary's deleted email, not the DNC.
I'm sorry I mischaracterized your stance on this. Now lets see if your opinion of the other events used to justify the "Crossfire Hurricane" operation withstands the investigations into its genesis.
 

EatTheRich

President
Perhaps, but there's a reason that communism has failed everywhere it has been tried on a larger scale, and it's not because the evil Americans undermined these nobel experiments. And that reason is why the modern Marxist movement has turned its longing eyes toward socialism as a training environment to help them figure out how to make their ideology work at the national level.
I assume that by “communism” here you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat and that by “socialism” you mean the capitalist welfare state ... which Marxists have never supported as an end in itself or a means of building communism, but only recognized as a by-product of the fight for communism and conserved its progressive gains in order to protect workers and maintain their confidence.

Since “communism” has resulted in higher living standards everywhere it has been introduced, and restoration of capitalism led to plummeting living standards in Russia and many other countries, I’m not sure in what respect it failed. Do you mean because they weren’t able to keep it, or to maintain every joy and tittle of constitutional hair-splitting, in the face of millions killed and trillions spent sabotaging it?
 

EatTheRich

President
The fact of the matter is that nobody paid that top rate back then, and it is absurd to suggest that markets were "more regulated" in the 1960s than they are today.

View attachment 42956

In fact you are conflating tax rates with tax payments: Spending = Taxes (current + deferred)

View attachment 42957

Clinton cut TAXATION and in so doing actually reduced the size and scope of government, which is much more important than the number of pages in the Federal Register. Bush, on the other hand, increased overall taxation levels (spending) and regulation (hello, do the words Sarbanes Oxley and Patriot Act mean anything to you?). That is why the economy was way better when Clinton left office than when Bush did (either one, for that matter) - not some disingenuous contortion of their Administration's policy agendas.

You are a smart guy, and obviously zealous about promoting your ideology. You shouldn't need to relay on a misrepresentation of Presidential records to make its case.
Which of those regulations are business-related?

1960s: FDA inspections thorough and strictly enforced.
Civil Rights compliance strictly enforced
Antitrust strictly enforced.

More regulated.
More progressive taxation.

Clinton: new legislation on family leave
New legislation on sex equality in pay
Higher minimum wage
New environmental legislation
Higher present taxes

Bush: Lower present taxes
Food & drug regulation relaxed
Financial regulation relaxed (till he introduced a pale imitation of the vigorous regulation of the past after the failure of deregulation led to clamor)
Environmental regulation relaxed
OSHA/MSHA regulation relaxed
Civil rights regulation relaxed
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Which of those regulations are business-related?

1960s: FDA inspections thorough and strictly enforced.
Civil Rights compliance strictly enforced
Antitrust strictly enforced.

More regulated.
More progressive taxation.

Clinton: new legislation on family leave
New legislation on sex equality in pay
Higher minimum wage
New environmental legislation
Higher present taxes

Bush: Lower present taxes
Food & drug regulation relaxed
Financial regulation relaxed (till he introduced a pale imitation of the vigorous regulation of the past after the failure of deregulation led to clamor)
Environmental regulation relaxed
OSHA/MSHA regulation relaxed
Civil rights regulation relaxed
Virtually all of them. Certainly not more regulated, and not more "progressively" taxed either. Back in the 60s the wealthy could still use family trusts to shield assets from the high tax rates, and you could still run a good deal of personal expenses through your business (and write them off as business expenses) well into the 80s. The fact of the matter is that you are either mis-informed about this stuff or being disingenuous - which is it? The fact is, also, that f you are only considering current (non-payroll) taxation, the "rich" have never paid a larger share of the tax burden than they are now.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I assume that by “communism” here you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat and that by “socialism” you mean the capitalist welfare state ... which Marxists have never supported as an end in itself or a means of building communism, but only recognized as a by-product of the fight for communism and conserved its progressive gains in order to protect workers and maintain their confidence.

Since “communism” has resulted in higher living standards everywhere it has been introduced, and restoration of capitalism led to plummeting living standards in Russia and many other countries, I’m not sure in what respect it failed. Do you mean because they weren’t able to keep it, or to maintain every joy and tittle of constitutional hair-splitting, in the face of millions killed and trillions spent sabotaging it?
Well, when you put it that way, obviously communism is "winning…"
 

EatTheRich

President
Virtually all of them. Certainly not more regulated, and not more "progressively" taxed either. Back in the 60s the wealthy could still use family trusts to shield assets from the high tax rates, and you could still run a good deal of personal expenses through your business (and write them off as business expenses) well into the 80s. The fact of the matter is that you are either mis-informed about this stuff or being disingenuous - which is it? The fact is, also, that f you are only considering current (non-payroll) taxation, the "rich" have never paid a larger share of the tax burden than they are now.
But the total tax/GDP ratio is lower, right?
 
Virtually all of them. Certainly not more regulated, and not more "progressively" taxed either. Back in the 60s the wealthy could still use family trusts to shield assets from the high tax rates, and you could still run a good deal of personal expenses through your business (and write them off as business expenses) well into the 80s. The fact of the matter is that you are either mis-informed about this stuff or being disingenuous - which is it? The fact is, also, that f you are only considering current (non-payroll) taxation, the "rich" have never paid a larger share of the tax burden than they are now.
And corporations have never paid less of the larger tax burden.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
And corporations have never paid less of the larger tax burden.
Who do you think pays corporate taxes? Are you seriously suggesting they don't factor them into their pricing models? So we should raise our corporate taxes and make our companies less competitive in a global marketplace? That is absurd!
 

Marcus Aurelius

Governor
Supporting Member
You trust Barr, I do not.
Specifically, why? My guess is that it's 'because Trump picked him'. Meaning that you don't trust anyone picked by a Republican, but you trust everyone picked by a Democrat.

Typical liberal mentality. 'OUR guys are all awesome, yours all suck!'

Pathetic.
 
Top