Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[The Founding Fatherland]

He's already broken the law and gotten away with it, why should he be scared of tax returns?

Because he's actually probably not nearly as rich as he claims.

Hm. That actually makes sense.

[Albrenia]

There must be some pretty shady shit in those tax returns for Trump to not release them. I would have thought he'd love to gloat about all the money he made and how little tax he paid on it.

He's already broken the law and gotten away with it, why should he be scared of tax returns?

Maybe he learned something from Al Capone?

[Albrenia]

He's already broken the law and gotten away with it, why should he be scared of tax returns?

Because he's actually probably not nearly as rich as he claims.

That would be something he'd try to hide, so quite probable.

[New haven america]

1. Thank you for proving that you haven't looked into tax percentages throughout the years, or willing choose to ignore the amount of loopholes and tax breaks that the wealthy get. Well, I suppose you'd have to do that if you ever wanted to claim that American Capitalism and Reaganomics is good.
2. I reiterate my original point #2

1. Without Trump's tax returns, we have no proof as to whether or not he avoided paying much.
However, for a certain 44%, there's plenty of proof there.

1. We have it on video of him admitting that he didn't pay his bloody taxes.
2. I see you've failed to follow along with my other points.

Oh, what's that point? You like Rand, I'm not gonna get anywhere.

[Petrasylvania]

When the rich who get all the tax breaks hoard their money instead of spending it on expanding business, infrastructure or whatever the proponents of Reaganomics claim they're supposed to the end result is that the lower classes shoulder practically the entire tax burden for them.

A practical solution would be to eliminate the income tax. But seeing as that is rather unlikely for the time being, consider the following:
https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... h-hoarding

So either you expect the government to fund itself by some other means or you hate government and want it to dissolve, replaced by private corporations handling infrastructure like highways and police which you obviously think you can pay for.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Without Trump's tax returns, we have no proof as to whether or not he avoided paying much.
However, for a certain 44%, there's plenty of proof there.

1. We have it on video of him admitting that he didn't pay his bloody taxes.
2. I see you've failed to follow along with my other points.

Oh, what's that point? You like Rand, I'm not gonna get anywhere.

"Admissions" are not proof.

A practical solution would be to eliminate the income tax. But seeing as that is rather unlikely for the time being, consider the following:
https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... h-hoarding

So either you expect the government to fund itself by some other means or you hate government and want it to dissolve, replaced by private corporations handling infrastructure like highways and police which you obviously think you can pay for.

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

[Bakery Hill]

1. We have it on video of him admitting that he didn't pay his bloody taxes.
2. I see you've failed to follow along with my other points.

Oh, what's that point? You like Rand, I'm not gonna get anywhere.

"Admissions" are not proof.

So either you expect the government to fund itself by some other means or you hate government and want it to dissolve, replaced by private corporations handling infrastructure like highways and police which you obviously think you can pay for.

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

lol

[Albrenia]

Wait, admissions are not proof? Why do courts of law accept them as evidence then?

[The Founding Fatherland]

He's already broken the law and gotten away with it, why should he be scared of tax returns?

Maybe he learned something from Al Capone?

Pretty sure Al Capone had less fans in the government and amongst voters than Trump though.

[New haven america]

1. We have it on video of him admitting that he didn't pay his bloody taxes.
2. I see you've failed to follow along with my other points.

Oh, what's that point? You like Rand, I'm not gonna get anywhere.

1."Admissions" are not proof.

So either you expect the government to fund itself by some other means or you hate government and want it to dissolve, replaced by private corporations handling infrastructure like highways and police which you obviously think you can pay for.

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. 2.Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

1. Yeah, and the Sun orbits the Earth.
2.

[Northern Davincia]

Wait, admissions are not proof? Why do courts of law accept them as evidence then?

They can be flawed (or in this case, not backed up by anything). To say otherwise is ignorant.

1."Admissions" are not proof.

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

1. Yeah, and the Sun orbits the Earth.

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logica ... quivalence

[New haven america]

Wait, admissions are not proof? Why do courts of law accept them as evidence then?

They can be flawed (or in this case, not backed up by anything). To say otherwise is ignorant.

1. Yeah, and the Sun orbits the Earth.

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logica ... quivalence

I see you have no idea how to use logical fallacies either.

Economics, politics, fallacies. What next on your "I think I know, but don't really know list"?

[Northern Davincia]

They can be flawed (or in this case, not backed up by anything). To say otherwise is ignorant.

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logica ... quivalence

I see you have no idea how to use logical fallacies either.

Economics, politics, fallacies. What next on your "I think I know, but don't really know list"?

I'll come back to this once you put some actual thought into your arguments.

[Petrasylvania]

So either you expect the government to fund itself by some other means or you hate government and want it to dissolve, replaced by private corporations handling infrastructure like highways and police which you obviously think you can pay for.

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

[Northern Davincia]

I do hate the government, and want it to dissolve, but also recognize that few hold that desire as well. Remember, the income tax did not exist until 1913 and the country was doing fine beforehand.

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

[Petrasylvania]

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

So you prefer the United States to remain small and primitive compared to all the other nations in the world. World War 2 would have been a doozy with the U.S. small as you want it to be.

[Post War America]

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

So you want a US where slavery is legal and protected? And one without the Bill of Rights, those weren't part of the original constitution.

[New haven america]

I see you have no idea how to use logical fallacies either.

Economics, politics, fallacies. What next on your "I think I know, but don't really know list"?

I'll come back to this once you put some actual thought into your arguments.

Oh the irony...

[Northern Davincia]

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

So you prefer the United States to remain small and primitive compared to all the other nations in the world. World War 2 would have been a doozy with the U.S. small as you want it to be.

FDR pretty much ignored all the warning signs for Pearl Harbor. The size of government does not indicate how primitive a nation is.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

So you want a US where slavery is legal and protected? And one without the Bill of Rights, those weren't part of the original constitution.

Where did I imply that I want slavery to be legal? I follow the constitution as it currently is. It's just the 16th Amendment that gets on my nerves.

[Lady Scylla]

God, stop with the daily revolution talk.

And I guarantee you there will be a bunch of protests, or it will be caught up in lawsuits. And I will definitely be reminding people of all the things Republicans are doing that likely the majority don't support, like their tax plan which unsurprisingly they seem to actually be potentially able to pass unlike everything else of theirs.

I don't think Congress can be sued for doing something unpopular like destroying the environment. This is battle that must be fought physically if given no other choice.

Like I have said, fighting for what you believe should not stop at democracy.

I'm sure your run of the mill terrorist has the same justification, actually. It is getting old though, don't think anyone here is willing to entertain your batshit idea.

[Lady Scylla]

So you prefer the United States to remain small and primitive compared to all the other nations in the world. World War 2 would have been a doozy with the U.S. small as you want it to be.

FDR pretty much ignored all the warning signs for Pearl Harbor. The size of government does not indicate how primitive a nation is.

So you want a US where slavery is legal and protected? And one without the Bill of Rights, those weren't part of the original constitution.

Where did I imply that I want slavery to be legal? I follow the constitution as it currently is. It's just the 16th Amendment that gets on my nerves.

Erm. The US cut off oil to Japan, with the likely intention of starting a provocation since the Japanese war machine was reliant on those imports. The American public didn't want to get involved and supported neutrality, not so much the government. And it's likely the US was aware an attack was coming, given the prior embargo, the routine and continual promises from Japan, and the absence of some of our fleet, notably carriers from Pearl Harbour during the attack, our response at Midway, and the fact oil reserves on Oahu were spared by the Japanese during the attack (whether an incidental blunder, or an intentional move). I'd wager the government knew full well an attack was coming.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pu ... spartandhp

[Petrasylvania]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-says-americans-dont-show-trump-enough-respect/ar-AAtM40b?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Putin trying half-hearted damage control. Better have security detail posted on Mueller.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

The 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights have furthered the size and advancement of the government so I’d say it’s following the constitution well enough.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And you're ignoring how government has become significantly larger and more advanced since 1913.

I dislike both of those things. See, I prefer the government when it actually follows the constitution.

The US government follows the constitution, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Unlike you, they actually have the authority to declare an action unconstitutional. And according to them, the US is completely in line.