Angel House Portraits wrote:
I gladly stay home. Just pay me those 6 weeks. I have playstation, 4k tv, internet, old raw files.

And how and when will this handout get paid off?  Tax the rich?  They already pay the majority of the taxes collected.

JustHenry wrote:

And how and when will this handout get paid off?  Tax the rich?  They already pay the majority of the taxes collected.

Maybe that's because the rich make the majority of the money. I'd prefer that all millionaires pay a higher tax percent than I do!
It seems to me, from what little we know, that our good president pays less taxes than anybody in THIS room!!! If only we could all afford his tax layers.
John

JustHenry wrote:

And how and when will this handout get paid off?  Tax the rich?  They already pay the majority of the taxes collected.

That is a simplistic evaluation of a complicate problem.  What exactly are you saying?  The highest earners pay the greatest amount of the tax totals?  What about relative to their ability to pay?  Are you aware of what the tax rates have been in the past?  Did the country collapse when the rich paid far more in taxes then they do now?  When a certain self proclaimed billionaire (probable just another one of his series of lies) pays fewer dollars in taxes, if any, than most people would be required to pay for rent in a single month, then your claim rings hollow and false.   Let us remember that trump apparently took a $70 million tax credit he was not entitled to and there are two more questionable tax claims of more than $40 million each in his carefully guarded secret tax returns.  If you consider that if even a few the very rich cheat on their taxes as trump does, then the rich are paying far less than their fair share.

Fair share is something that your claim does not address.

Surely you are aware that the great Republican giveaways and runaway spending have to be paid sooner or later.  What suggestions did you are to raise funds wasted on the Great Southern Wall?"  Mexico will pay for them turned out to be a lie. (Of course, what kind of idiot would have believed that in the first place?)  And when trump raided the military budget and stole the funds for needed military projects, what suggestion did you make to raise money to replace those funds?  With the amount of concern you are showing for the welfare of the people, being the first assertion out of your mouth, being that the rich are paying enough, it would seem like you are happy to put the burden on those that make less, despite the tax breaks the rich got.  Do you propose to tax people already in poverty at the same rate as the rich?  Then there are the socialist payments that trump supporters received from funds from tariff money that we have all paid. 

Consequently, this appears to be another one of those threads that you start just to throw crap.  You are going to throw crap because you value money over lives.  You aren't going to offer a solution to save lives and the economy and when someone made a comment, you didn't offer a solution, you just threw more crap.

JustHenry wrote:
And how and when will this handout get paid off?  Tax the rich?  They already pay the majority of the taxes collected.

Wouldnt be any problem paying it off if tax cheats like Trump paid their share.

Wouldnt be any problem if the following companies had not had effective tax rates of 0% or less in 2018...(Thanks to the Trump tax cuts)

Phillips-Van Heusen, Gannett, INTL FCStone, Murphy Oil, AECOM Technology, International Business Machines, CenturyLink,  DowDuPont, Activision Blizzard, Avis Budget Group, Celanese, JetBlue Airways, Deere, First Data, Duke Energy, Pitney Bowes, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, WEC Energy Group, Levi Strauss,  Brighthouse Financial, Aramark, Whirlpool, Prudential Financial, Trinity Industries, Ryder System, United States Steel, Eli Lilly, CMS Energy, Tapestry, EOG Resources, Beacon Roofing Supply, SPX, Realogy, Public Service Enterprise Group, Rockwell Collins, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, MDU Resources, FedEx, Williams, SpartanNash, Chevron, Delta Air Lines, Edison International, Penske Automotive Group, Principal Financial, PulteGroup, Air Products & Chemicals, Honeywell International, Netflix, General Motors, Tenet Healthcare, Xcel Energy, Halliburton, MGM Resorts International,  Atmos Energy, Molson Coors,  Nvidia, PPL, American Electric Power, Starbucks, Dominion Resources,  Mohawk Industries,  DTE Energy, Amazon, Andersons, Kinder Morgan, Owens Corning, Devon Energy, DXC Technology, FirstEnergy, Ameren, Hartford Financial Services, Alaska Air Group, Darden Restaurants, Ally Financial, Sanmina-SCI, Builders FirstSource, McKesson, Occidental Petroleum, UGI, Westrock, AK Steel Holding, ABM Industries, Cliffs Natural Resources, AMR, Chesapeake Energy, HD Supply,  Navistar International,  Pioneer Natural Resources, Salesforce.com, Visteon

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

That is a simplistic evaluation of a complicate problem.  What exactly are you saying?  The highest earners pay the greatest amount of the tax totals?  What about relative to their ability to pay?  Are you aware of what the tax rates have been in the past?  Did the country collapse when the rich paid far more in taxes then they do now?  When a certain self proclaimed billionaire (probable just another one of his series of lies) pays fewer dollars in taxes, if any, than most people would be required to pay for rent in a single month, then your claim rings hollow and false.   Let us remember that trump apparently took a $70 million tax credit he was not entitled to and there are two more questionable tax claims of more than $40 million each in his carefully guarded secret tax returns.  If you consider that if even a few the very rich cheat on their taxes as trump does, then the rich are paying far less than their fair share.

Fair share is something that your claim does not address.

Surely you are aware that the great Republican giveaways and runaway spending have to be paid sooner or later.  What suggestions did you are to raise funds wasted on the Great Southern Wall?"  Mexico will pay for them turned out to be a lie. (Of course, what kind of idiot would have believed that in the first place?)  And when trump raided the military budget and stole the funds for needed military projects, what suggestion did you make to raise money to replace those funds?  With the amount of concern you are showing for the welfare of the people, being the first assertion out of your mouth, being that the rich are paying enough, it would seem like you are happy to put the burden on those that make less, despite the tax breaks the rich got.  Do you propose to tax people already in poverty at the same rate as the rich?  Then there are the socialist payments that trump supporters received from funds from tariff money that we have all paid. 

Consequently, this appears to be another one of those threads that you start just to throw crap.  You are going to throw crap because you value money over lives.  You aren't going to offer a solution to save lives and the economy and when someone made a comment, you didn't offer a solution, you just threw more crap.

I spent over 30 years as a mortgage banker evaluating the income of a broad spectrum of individuals.  Yes the rich cheat on their taxes and so do waiters, waitresses, cosmetologists, landscapers and a variety of other people where payment is often in cash.  If you look at the IRS income tax charts you can clearly see that the more you make the higher percentage of that income you pay in taxes.  If you don't like the tax breaks and legal loopholes that exist in the tax code then pressure your congressman to change those laws but until they are eliminated don't chastise someone for using them to offset their tax burden.  And if someone is hiding their income, like payments to "the big guy" from foreign governments, then they should face the consequences.

You can claim I am placing a higher value over money than lives but recent history has proven that there is a cost in human lives from shutting down the economy.  Suicide rates are up, domestic abuse rates are up and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  We are likely to see such a toll in human lives increase as the long term effects of losing ones business and life savings plays out.  There's a cost to stay open and a cost to close.  It is reasonable to expect our government to evaluate the total cost of either option.  That's their job, not mine.

barepixels wrote:
[...]
James: “Nancy what’s your favourite flavour of ice cream?”
Nancy “Definitely the tears of poor people”
[...]

Of course, she never said any such thing, but that doesnt stop you from implying she did...

I must be a genuine criminal- I have ice cream (two flavors), a couple porterhouse steaks, and a nice pork roast in my freezer.... shame on me.

Want to compare negative comments about Trump? No? Thought not.

I am a recovering republican, left the party after 45 years. I have no love for the democratic party. But I voted for Biden- and will never vote republican again as long as Trump and his anti-democracy minions are in politics.

JustHenry wrote:
There is an article up on Yahoo right now quoting one of Biden's COVID advisors suggesting we should have a nationwide shutdown of 4 to 6 weeks.  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-co … 42095.html
The good doctor goes on to say the government should pay everyone in the US to stay home for 4 to 6 weeks.  The article doesn't say how the good doctor suggests we the taxpayers are ever going to pay for this handout.

In another article on Yahoo Finance the author is saying a nationwide shutdown would drop the DOW 4,000 to 6,000 points.

Elections certainly have consequences and in this case, negative consequences.

We end up back to the core problem.   How big does the negative economic impact (let alone people's individual personal impact) become if we DON'T significantly reduce the number infected with COVID-19?

It's not like the economy just goes back to normal when far, far greater numbers are being infected (with the increased numbers of fatalities) due to COVID-19.   People change their shopping patterns, major employment changes happen (lockdowns or not), and there is increased fear as the death rate goes up.  Especially when it becomes "very real" to those impacted.

And lastly, we keep seeing the requirement for much longer, and more serious lockdowns, because "less" wasn't done earlier.

As many have pointed out, "the economy VERSUS fighting COVID-19" is a false argument.   You have to deal with the core problem, as quickly and as efficiently as possible, to have the least negative impact on the economy over the long term.


[EDIT] Compare what happened to those countries and states that tried to go "all in" for the economy over fighting COVID-19.   The results are there for everyone to see. [/EDIT]

Angel House Portraits wrote:
I gladly stay home. Just pay me those 6 weeks. I have playstation, 4k tv, internet, old raw files.

JustHenry wrote:
And how and when will this handout get paid off?  Tax the rich?  They already pay the majority of the taxes collected.

Borrow the money from China, just tack it on the ever growing debt.  Each President borrows more than the one before, why should Biden be any different? 

...till one day it all falls down.

John Silva Photography wrote:
I'd prefer that all millionaires pay a higher tax percent than I do!

One of those things that sounds great on paper but an inquiring mind might search the internet
for history on how  "tax the rich" has worked out.

rfordphotos wrote:
Wouldnt be any problem if the following companies had not had effective tax rates of 0% or less in 2018..

No mention of the cobra effects of regulatory restrictions and corporate taxation?
Who ultimately ends up paying corporate taxes?
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending it but it is a very complex issue.

nwprophoto wrote:
[...]
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending it but it is a very complex issue.

no more so than trying to defend doing nothing to help people during a pandemic because it will raise "debt".

rfordphotos wrote:
no more so than trying to defend doing nothing to help people during a pandemic because it will raise "debt".

Unfortunately its a complex world I do not claim to have answers.

But if you tax or regulate a business to the point it has to either shut down or move off shore who wins?

Something for your consideration

"Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt applies to become Cyprus citizen in $2.5m passport-for-sale program that will allow him unrestricted access to the EU - and tax breaks"

nwprophoto wrote:

Unfortunately its a complex world I do not claim to have answers.

But if you tax or regulate a business to the point it has to either shut down or move off shore who wins?

Something for your consideration

"Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt applies to become Cyprus citizen in $2.5m passport-for-sale program that will allow him unrestricted access to the EU - and tax breaks"

Amazon was among the companies listed above with a "less than zero" tax rate.

Bezos moves his wealth offshore... fine. It is really simple- if Amazon wants to do business in the US, it pays US taxes. If Google prefers  Cyprus---fine with me, and dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

But dont expect to benefit from the American market without paying for the privilege.

I am tired of lining the pockets of people like Trump, Bezos, Zuckerberg etc etc. If they want the benefits of doing business in the US, if they want to have American consumers--- pay American taxes---pay their share. I am sick to death of paying their freight.

barepixels wrote:
You fail to learn "He who has the gold makes the rules"

With their money, they can bribe/lobby to change the laws in their favor.  Or just move.

and with honest government, the robber barons can be stopped. All it takes is the guts and integrity to do what is right. 

The "Gilded Age" ended a long time ago--- the reforms that resulted proved that with the will---the rich could be brought back under the law they loved to ignore----Kinda like Trump likes to ignore the law now.

barepixels wrote:
[...]

You said you are tired of lining the pockets of people like Trump, Bezos, Zuckerberg but didn't mention the Democrat leaders lolol

I guess you missed the "etc etc etc"

barepixels wrote:
but you just voted for Beijing Biden the warmonger

because the other option was little Donnie Trump, with his rampant narcissism, blatant misogyny, overt racism and HISTORY of criminal behavior.

His ass kissing of Putin, Xi, Kim, Duterte, Bolsonaro and the other despots he supports made it pretty easy too.

His total failure to manage the pandemic was on my mind---

his history of tax fraud

the 20,000 plus documented times he has lied to the public since he took office---

not even remotely difficult to make that choice

JustHenry wrote:

I spent over 30 years as a mortgage banker evaluating the income of a broad spectrum of individuals.  Yes the rich cheat on their taxes and so do waiters, waitresses, cosmetologists, landscapers and a variety of other people where payment is often in cash.  If you look at the IRS income tax charts you can clearly see that the more you make the higher percentage of that income you pay in taxes.  If you don't like the tax breaks and legal loopholes that exist in the tax code then pressure your congressman to change those laws but until they are eliminated don't chastise someone for using them to offset their tax burden.  And if someone is hiding their income, like payments to "the big guy" from foreign governments, then they should face the consequences.

You can claim I am placing a higher value over money than lives but recent history has proven that there is a cost in human lives from shutting down the economy.  Suicide rates are up, domestic abuse rates are up and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  We are likely to see such a toll in human lives increase as the long term effects of losing ones business and life savings plays out.  There's a cost to stay open and a cost to close.  It is reasonable to expect our government to evaluate the total cost of either option.  That's their job, not mine.

As I said, you made a simplistic statement regarding a complicated problem.  Thank you for illustrating other complications which you conveniently ignored prior to this.  There is a cost is shutting down the economy.  There is also a cost in not shutting down the economy.  None of your deflections change that.  All you are offering is a trade off, a poor one at that, and not a solution. 

Like it or not, a large amount of the economy will shut down as the virus gets worse even if there is no official closure.  People do not live the same lives they use to.  Theaters are not going to flourish this winter.  For me, of the few dances that are available, they aren't worth going to because so many people see the risk as too great to turn out.  There are people out of work right now.  There are people that have permanently lost jobs and businesses.  So how does your adolescent concern for how we are going to pay for assistance make a bit of difference, if we are going to be paying for the assistance in way or another?  Or are you plain and simple planning on letting the people that are suffering the most, go it alone, per the McConnell/trump strategy?

Your rejection of the rich paying more tells me that you do value money over life and the response that you made subsequently reinforces that conclusion. Those that will suffer because of suicide and domestic violence didn't matter enough to you to include mentioning them in your previous crap throwing posts, indicating your priorities.  You didn't include one iota of concern for them until you were challenged and you needed a false argument to not have a shutdown. 

Your want me to complain to my congresswoman about the legal loopholes, but you are already saying, "They [the rich] already pay the majority of the taxes collected." The implication of that is that the rich are paying to much, or enough.  Who benefits from loopholes?  What is the difference if you are closing loopholes, or raising taxes on the rich?  What you are looking at is the amount of money as a percentage of the total amount collected that the rich are paying into a chronically underfunded government.  A situation which provides substantially more rewards to the wealthy.  What they currently pay has nothing to do with their ability to pay.  Meanwhile, the money squandered by the Republicans in government is certainly an issue.   As is the Republicans enabling the rich to not pay their fair share.

With your great experience evaluating people financially and the startling realization that even poor people cheat on their taxes, how many waitresses, landscapers and cosmetologist have to cheat on their taxes, regarding what percentage of their true income, until they have deprived the Untied States Treasury of $70 million dollars?   The multipliers required for the "rest of us" to equal the tax cheating sums of the top five percent would be staggering.  Furthermore, funds not paid into the treasury by a waitress are much more likely going straight back into the economy for something like food and shelter and necessities, as opposed to the trappings of the wealthy, like payouts to paramours.

barepixels wrote:
This is getting funny...  btw "honest government" is a pipe dream.  99.999% of them are lawyers.  Beware of the smooth talkers with forked tongue.

here is a quiz

How is it possible for San Diego strip clubs to remain open indoors but churches, schools, gyms and restaurants are forced to close

Why don't you read the court opinions of the judges that upheld those rules?  I am sure you will get to lol.

Yes, honest government, especially during the trump administration was a pipe dream.  My how he did enrich himself.  But, unlike you, some of us will not accept a dishonest government and we will demand more.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

As I said, you made a simplistic statement regarding a complicated problem.  Thank you for illustrating other complications which you conveniently ignored prior to this.  There is a cost is shutting down the economy.  There is also a cost in not shutting down the economy.  None of your deflections change that.  All you are offering is a trade off, a poor one at that, and not a solution. 

Like it or not, a large amount of the economy will shut down as the virus gets worse even if there is no official closure.  People do not live the same lives they use to.  Theaters are not going to flourish this winter.  For me, of the few dances that are available, they aren't worth going to because so many people see the risk as too great to turn out.  There are people out of work right now.  There are people that have permanently lost jobs and businesses.  So how does your adolescent concern for how we are going to pay for assistance make a bit of difference, if we are going to be paying for the assistance in way or another?  Or are you plain and simple planning on letting the people that are suffering the most, go it alone, per the McConnell/trump strategy?

Your rejection of the rich paying more tells me that you do value money over life and the response that you made subsequently reinforces that conclusion. Those that will suffer because of suicide and domestic violence didn't matter enough to you to include mentioning them in your previous crap throwing posts, indicating your priorities.  You didn't include one iota of concern for them until you were challenged and you needed a false argument to not have a shutdown. 

Your want me to complain to my congresswoman about the legal loopholes, but you are already saying, "They [the rich] already pay the majority of the taxes collected." The implication of that is that the rich are paying to much, or enough.  Who benefits from loopholes?  What is the difference if you are closing loopholes, or raising taxes on the rich?  What you are looking at is the amount of money as a percentage of the total amount collected that the rich are paying into a chronically underfunded government.  A situation which provides substantially more rewards to the wealthy.  What they currently pay has nothing to do with their ability to pay.  Meanwhile, the money squandered by the Republicans in government is certainly an issue.   As is the Republicans enabling the rich to not pay their fair share.

With your great experience evaluating people financially and the startling realization that even poor people cheat on their taxes, how many waitresses, landscapers and cosmetologist have to cheat on their taxes, regarding what percentage of their true income, until they have deprived the Untied States Treasury of $70 million dollars?   The multipliers required for the "rest of us" to equal the tax cheating sums of the top five percent would be staggering.  Furthermore, funds not paid into the treasury by a waitress are much more likely going straight back into the economy for something like food and shelter and necessities, as opposed to the trappings of the wealthy, like payouts to paramours.

I find it amusing and illustrative that I post facts, policy and reasoned, on topic arguments and you resort to name calling and personal attacks. How typical of those on the left and yet they call conservatives divisive.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Yes, honest government, especially during the trump administration was a pipe dream.

so you are saying an honest government under Biden is NOT a pipedream?

please tell me why there are no such great movements as #walkaway #blackexit #lexit for the conservative moving to the left?   I mean millions of people abandon ship?

JustHenry wrote:

I find it amusing and illustrative that I post facts, policy and reasoned, on topic arguments and you resort to name calling and personal attacks. How typical of those on the left and yet they call conservatives divisive.

I find it amusing that you think you post facts, policy and reasoned, on topic arguments.  As in this case, you have to come back with lies, false accusations, deflections and dismissals rather than counter points.  I find it amusing that you don't understand the difference between an evaluation of what you say and a personal attack and that you have a really good imagination to suggest I am calling you names.    But I will admit to delivering appropriately condescending responses to your arrogant and uniformed tripe.  How typical of those on the right and yet they call centrists and progressives divisive.

You set the tone in this thread and many others.  For instance, in one thread you referred to "Leftist hippies" going to Canada, as if there were no good ole conservative boys fleeing north or avoiding the draft in other illegal ways.  Your gross generalizations about people are constant and consistent.  Too bad you don't like getting back what you dish out.

barepixels wrote:
so you are saying an honest government under Biden is NOT a pipedream?

please tell me why there are no such great movements as #walkaway #blackexit #lexit for the conservative moving to the left?   I mean millions of people abandon ship?

An honest government under Biden is a greater possibility than under trump.  Care to compare the numbers of convictions that happened to people in trump's administration with those in Obama's?   Millions of people walked away from the Republican party and the right in this election and over the last four years.  The exodus began before that.  Other deflected right.  What do childish hash tags matter?

edit:
Regarding your altered post: I don't care what you claim.  Your public displays do not give you any credibility.  You are on the path of your choosing.  What kind of person would go from Bernie to trump?

barepixels wrote:
ok so your answer confirms what I think.  It's all about the hatred for Trump and not much loved for today's Democratic Party.
TDS is strong in you  lol

As for why I went from Bernie to Trump.  Both are "outsiders"  In 2016 Bernie got me interested in politics.  I did love him.  When the DNC cheated Bernie I got very upset.  I knew if I went with Jill, Hillary will win so I took a chance and vote for the other outsider.  I told myself if Trump fails me I will vote him out.  To my surprise, he turns out to be great and Bernie turns out to be a sell-out.  Trump did great with the economy until the Chinese virus affects the world and not just us.  I strongly believe Trump can improve the economy again.  And he is anti-war!!!  Boggle my mind how the left does not celebrate that we have not had a new war in the last four years.  Anyway am not going to waste more time on this reply because you did say you don't care.  Thus I shouldn't be caring for your opinions.

Let's not forget that you changed your post in between the time I quoted you and the time I posted my response.  Now you want to claim that makes my answer significant in some way because you changed the criteria to something I didn't respond to?  Nor do I have any obligation to answer a question with your childish limitations.

Bernie and trump may have both been outsiders, but they are night and day.  You are telling us then that you were a single issue voter.  Nothing mattered other than obtaining an outsider.  That is a shortsighted action.  Yeah, Bernie got screwed over by a powerful machine, but if you liked anything that Bernie stood for then trump was the complete opposite of that regarding policy.  It wasn't an intellectual decision to turn to trump.  It was a hurt ego and possibly an angry desire to screw every else over due to the actions of a few people.

I was a registered republican, because in PA, being independent reduces a person's voice.  I am mostly independent in reality, both left and right of center depending on the issue.  When I saw what Republicans were doing to the country with their hatred of Obama, and I had tea party people talking to me from the start, and the impact that trump's candidacy was having on my friends that aren't children of Europeans, there was and is no way for me to support him.  I make no secret of my hatred for trump.  He is a crook and a con man that thinks of himself before the country or anything or anyone else.  If you are concerned wth honest government, then you should hate him also because he has torn down the barriers that help us rid ourselves of corruption in government.  He has blazed the trail for the next evil man to be far worse.

Presidents get more credit then they deserve for helping or hurting the economy.  To claim trump was responsible for the economy is a myopic view.  The stock market was great, but it was in spite of trump, not because of him and many people do not benefit from higher stock prices.  The biggest thing that happened during trump's administration concerning the stock market was the bail out, which didn't come from him, and without House Democrat's impact, the bailout would have done nothing but help big business.  The stock market continues to react in negative ways regarding the current lack of effort to stimulate the economy.  The impact of trump on small business was varied.  The virus helped my business, but it still isn't as good as it was under Clinton. 

trump's environmental roll backs are an invitation to polluters to let the taxpayers pick up the tab for their pollution, both in clean ups and in impacted health.   If you just woke up politically four or five years ago, then you have no way to remember the filth in the air and water in the 70s, before Nixon brought in the EPA.  You can't see the differences.  Rather than reduce our dependency on clean air in exchange for the creation of jobs, the effort should have been to limit trade with countries that didn't meet environmental standards and human right standards.  Instead, it was all about money and who profits.  If other countries were held to our standards to do business here, then their costs would go up and jobs wouldn't leave our shores so fast. 

You keep talking about Biden's approach to China, but that has been the thinking of all the world' leader since Nixon.  A new approach was needed and that was going to happen under the Pacific trade agreement but trump torpedoed that for no better reason than it was an Obama era bill. 

trump isn't anti-war.  If you look at the definition of a warmonger, he is a warmonger.  He encourages aggression abroad and within our country. Sometimes a leader has to fight a war, just like sometimes people have to defend themselves from domestic violence.  trump didn't start new conflicts because he wants peace, but because he is a coward.  He increased tensions across the country and the world with his bravado regarding North Korea, who definitely got the better of him.  Also, trump did put the country and our service personnel in jeopardy with his assassination plot in Iraq.  Servicemen were seriously injured.  He didn't respond not because no one was killed, but because he didn't want to escalate because it was bad for him.  Walking away from conflicts and leaving your allies to die is not anti-war, it is murder.  And don't sell him short.  He has until January 20th to start a war.

While I could be pleased that we didn't have a new war, that doesn't override the blustering he did, nor does the lack of a new war make us safer.  trump has strengthen China strategically and militarily.  He has emboldened them.  I have heard numerous times from my friends that are in China or do business in China that the Chinese consider trump to have weakened America and to be leading the USA to our end.  I disagree with them.  We can survive the fool.  But if the Chinese people feel that way, you know the leadership isn't threatened by his loud mouth and his tiny stick. 

trump has not only failed to deal with North Korea but allowed them to become a bigger threat. 

If you look carefully, you will find that trump and Republicans cast dispersion on the opposition for exactly the things that trump and Republicans are doing.  This is both a fascist technique and one that trump's advisor, Steve Bannon, employed.  Trumpets are fond of using the ploy of TDS.  It is a childish thing and they can groundlessly use it to dismiss sound arguments against trump.  The reality of TDS is it an affliction of trump supporters.  It is like the cat transmitted parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, that makes a cat's prey easier to catch.  Look at the historical change in what is acceptable for a candidate.  In addition to his racism and misogyny, he has five children by three wives and was having multiple affairs, talked openly and brazenly of sexual assault and was accused of many instances, up to and including rape.  He would never have been acceptable if it was a Democrat running or a Republican in the recent past.  In these forums some guy insisted that Biden was no good because Jill's ex, after over 40 years, suddenly accused Biden and Jill of having an affair while he was still married to Jill.  Jill's ex was a convicted felon (fraud) and was selling a book.  Every time someone from the trump administration said disparaging things about trump, he dismissed it because they were selling a book, and if the person had a history of criminal behavior, which some did because they got caught doing the illegal bidding of trump, then trump was sure to pull those facts, somewhat embellished, out to discredit the person.  Yet when a person that fit the exact pattern said something about Biden, there was no problem.  Those situations are an indication of the mental impact that TDS has on trump supporters.

But look at what you did there.  Rather than support your arguments with rational discussion, you took the low road and made it about a hated for trump, as if there is no reason for hating trump, and brought up TDS, which is nothing but a dismissal the way you use it.  You don't counter my points.  You don't display critical thinking or communication skills.  If you want to believe what the most untrustworthy people on the right have to say, well, that is on you.  But you ought to be able to express yourself and explain your reasoning, rather than coming here regurgitating unsubstantiated twists of reality that are no more than empty taunts and lies.   You don't present rational arguments.   Consequently and once again, you have no credibility because of your confrontational approach and your lack of reasoning and fact, with few exceptions- all of which gets you treated like you treat other people.

rfordphotos wrote:
Of course, she never said any such thing, but that doesnt stop you from implying she did...

Not implying. Claiming it outright.

Facts aren't important--when they're inconvenient to some people.

barepixels wrote:
[snip]Trump did great with the economy until the Chinese virus affects the world and not just us.  I strongly believe Trump can improve the economy again.  And he is anti-war!!!  .

I agree, Trump can help the economy by paying taxes.

Chinese virus is a racist term and what about Qasem Soleimani?

JustHenry wrote:

Our current leaderships plan, or lack of isn't working so what do You suggest Dr? 

oh wait, Your opinion of any strategy to corral an out of control deadly disease affecting millions while killing hundreds of thousands means nothing.

JustHenry wrote:

Our current leaderships plan, or lack of isn't working so what do You suggest Dr? 

oh wait, Your opinion of any strategy to corral an out of control deadly disease affecting millions while killing hundreds of thousands means nothing.

You left out my quote.  Try again hun.