I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :P
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :P
That's a common complaint among members of the Trumpista right, yes. For example, "black lives matter" is bad, because it suggests that blacks have special rights not to be shot by police, whereas "all lives matter" is good, because it suggests.... I'm not sure, actually. We all have the same right to be gunned down by police? A policeman shooting an unarmed suspect has exactly the same right to shoot as the suspect has to be shot? Like most of the lunatic right wing talking points, it only makes sense as long as you don't actually analyze it.
Similarly, look at the complaint that giving gays the right to marry deprives average Americans of the right to deprive gays of the right to marry.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :PThat's a common complaint among members of the Trumpista right, yes. For example, "black lives matter" is bad, because it suggests that blacks have special rights not to be shot by police, whereas "all lives matter" is good, because it suggests.... I'm not sure, actually. We all have the same right to be gunned down by police? A policeman shooting an unarmed suspect has exactly the same right to shoot as the suspect has to be shot? Like most of the lunatic right wing talking points, it only makes sense as long as you don't actually analyze it.
Similarly, look at the complaint that giving gays the right to marry deprives average Americans of the right to deprive gays of the right to marry.
I believe the statement was in reference to the "No Fly, No Buy" limitation of 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights being infringed by a secret, non-appealable, lacking oversight "Watchlist" being maintained by who knows who.
Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.
If Trump still had his broker's license - the last I can find dates back to 1978 when he received a broker's fee - he'd be very likely to lose it if anyone saw fit to file a suitable complaint.
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :PThat's a common complaint among members of the Trumpista right, yes. For example, "black lives matter" is bad, because it suggests that blacks have special rights not to be shot by police, whereas "all lives matter" is good, because it suggests.... I'm not sure, actually. We all have the same right to be gunned down by police? A policeman shooting an unarmed suspect has exactly the same right to shoot as the suspect has to be shot? Like most of the lunatic right wing talking points, it only makes sense as long as you don't actually analyze it.
Similarly, look at the complaint that giving gays the right to marry deprives average Americans of the right to deprive gays of the right to marry.
I'm not sure if you're including me in that "Trumpista" comment, but since my comment was, as psionichamster pointed out, in reference to a 2nd Amendment issue, it does not apply to all Americans (given that not all Americans have 2nd Amendment rights, like felons, minors, or those legally declared mentally incapable).
Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :P-George Carlin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd advise adult women not to take the chance of being alone with him, even for business.
Not just women. Trump's own lawyers always meet with him in pairs, so he can't lie about their meetings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, because Trump was causing a new scandal.
Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, because Trump was causing a new scandal.I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
Could you link me these proposals? I only found one instance on Hillary's site where she gave any actual numbers for how much she was going to tax, even though she didn't go into great detail as to who specifically would be receiving that tax increase, and what the criteria would be.
But it's perfectly fine to restrict their ability to travel.I believe the statement was in reference to the "No Fly, No Buy" limitation of 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights being infringed by a secret, non-appealable, lacking oversight "Watchlist" being maintained by who knows who.Average americans have different rights than the rest of us? :PThat's a common complaint among members of the Trumpista right, yes. For example, "black lives matter" is bad, because it suggests that blacks have special rights not to be shot by police, whereas "all lives matter" is good, because it suggests.... I'm not sure, actually. We all have the same right to be gunned down by police? A policeman shooting an unarmed suspect has exactly the same right to shoot as the suspect has to be shot? Like most of the lunatic right wing talking points, it only makes sense as long as you don't actually analyze it.
Similarly, look at the complaint that giving gays the right to marry deprives average Americans of the right to deprive gays of the right to marry.
No, none of us are saying that.
Personally, I'd be happiest with "No Fly, No Buy", but with more oversight and due process applied to the list.
So you want No Fly, No Buy but without a majority of its functioning mechanisms?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having issues viewing the page in proper format, like I'm getting a cached version, but my god is there detailed, bulleted lists of dozens of policy proposals....Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, becauseI didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documentsI didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
So what I'm mostly seeing is generalized "here's the problem, I'm going to support measures to curb that problem" with some occasional "here's the kind of measure I would support" (but in a not instance-specific way) comments thrown. That's great and a fine start, but as a guy who likes to deal with things in terms of numbers, it doesn't do as much for me. Sure, I can agree that problem x needs to be solved, and supporting measures to solve that problem is great. BUT, if I'm not also presented with "here's the expected cost of this specific solution" (meaning referencing specific real world instances of that solution being implemented, or actual estimated figures) or "here's the exact way that I plan to pay for this" (so "I'm going to tax people who fall under category A, B, and C", or "I'm going to curtail X program by Y amount"), then it doesn't tell me much of any real world value.
So you want No Fly, No Buy but without a majority of its functioning mechanisms?
Personally, I'd be happiest with "No Fly, No Buy", but with more oversight and due process applied to the list.I've got no idea what you mean by that. No idea how you got that from what I said.
Generally oversight and process makes such approaches more effective. You get better targeting rather than people thrown on the list just in case and with no way to purge the list of those who don't need to be there.
What I mean is that the No Fly part of it is predicated upon bypassing a person's right to due process. If you add in the due process requirement, then you lose the No Fly part, upon which the whole proposal is centered.
...Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out.I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
The unicorn you're asking for doesn't exist from any candidate ever.
|
Hillary Clinton calls for imposing a four-percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on Americans who make more than $5 million per year.
Edit: Among other things
*Heavy sigh*
Innocent until proven guilty.
Sure. That's why I said 'maybe'.
Though, given his eagerness to make unsubstantiated sexual misconduct allegations (against Bill Clinton) 'fair game', Trump really has only himself to blame.
More than that. We do get to judge people. Personally. Make decisions about how we treat them. Whether we trust them. Whether we respect them.
Innocent until proven guilty applies in a court of law.But yes, maybe. But the pattern exists, both in allegations and in his own boasting. Some of the allegations may not be true. I'd be absolutely shocked if they were all false.
Trump is of course threatening to sue the NY Times and other news organizations for their stories on this.
My prediction:
He's not going to sue. He'll only threaten.
The problem is that if he sues, he can be disposed and opens himself up to discovery. Since these allegations cover a very long span of time, multiple locations, multiple businesses, the NYT could request pretty much any document they wanted.
I think Trump is dumb enough to try suing, but with his children and campaign staff surrounding him right now, I think they might be able to keep him to just rhetorical threats. They won't be able to get him to shut up, but I doubt a suit is actually filed.
...Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues moreI didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
I didn't say it does. The question I was responding to was, "what's so bad about Hillary?". I gave some reasons that people might consider her bad. That does not mean that I was saying her level of "badness" was being used in comparison to other politicians (in fact I had a disclaimer at the bottom of my post stating exactly that).
Hillary Clinton calls for imposing a four-percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on Americans who make more than $5 million per year.
Edit: Among other things
I love that idea, yet i can already hear the howling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump lawyers threaten libel suit against the New York Times
The Times lawyers respond The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. .....Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
Trump lawyers threaten libel suit against the New York Times
The Times lawyers respond The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. .....Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
Seems to be a week for threats... Trump supporters are threathening a violent overthrow of government if the election doesn't go their way, and a Putin ally warns that a Clinton election means nuclear war.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump lawyers threaten libel suit against the New York Times
The Times lawyers respond The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. .....Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.
My favorite quote was the closing, If Mr. Trump disagrees, ... we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary Clinton calls for imposing a four-percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on Americans who make more than $5 million per year.
In other words, on a few pro athletes only. CEOs don't get a $5M salary; they get $200K and then $4.8M worth of stock options and so on that, like Trump, they can easily avoid paying any taxes on. Very wealthy people don't get any salary at all; they just sit around and their money generates more money faster than they can spend it. Hillary's proposal, as stated, affects almost no one and generates almost no revenue.
...I don't suppose the proposal could count stock options and other compensation as income when determining tax...?
...I don't suppose the proposal could count stock options and other compensation as income when determining tax...?
For all her experience, Hillary doesn't get to reform the entire tax code in a single bullet point -- at least not if she intends it to be halfway believable. Redefining what counts as "income" (and how) means overturning decades of tax code law.
True. Although, technically, it probably wouldn't be very hard for Congress to do - they just have to include a note saying how income is defined for a specific tax.
Whether or not it would actually get passed is another matter entirely, of course. XD Or in other words... it's easier said than done. (Unless they sneak it into something and nobody reads it, anyway. I hear that happens a lot.)
Hillary Clinton calls for imposing a four-percent “Fair Share Surcharge” on Americans who make more than $5 million per year.In other words, on a few pro athletes only. CEOs don't get a $5M salary; they get $200K and then $4.8M worth of stock options and so on that, like Trump, they can easily avoid paying any taxes on. Very wealthy people don't get any salary at all; they just sit around and their money generates more money faster than they can spend it. Hillary's proposal, as stated, affects almost no one and generates almost no revenue.
except the fair share surcharge specifically covers capital gains income as well as payroll income...
except the fair share surcharge specifically covers capital gains income as well as payroll income...
Then you just put it all offshore, or "re-invest" it, or offset it with capital losses from previous years, or any of the zillion other things you can do with income that's not from a paycheck. It's seriously not even that hard to do.
The wealthy do not play by any rules that you or I would recognize.Changing that fact is what Sanders campaigned on, and failed.
|
|
except the fair share surcharge specifically covers capital gains income as well as payroll income...Then you just put it all offshore, or "re-invest" it, or offset it with capital losses from previous years, or any of the zillion other things you can do with income that's not from a paycheck. It's seriously not even that hard to do.
The wealthy do not play by any rules that you or I would recognize.
Changing that fact is what Sanders campaigned on, and failed.
Some additional points you may have missed:
All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
Meeting your end well does not require wealth. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
That's at least a better evaluation than this.
Meeting your end well does not require wealth. :)All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
True.
Wealth sure helps you have a wonderful life before you meet your end, though.
"That is not dead that can eternal lie""To conquer death you only have to die."Meeting your end well does not require wealth. :)All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
And Strange Aeons, death may die.
Meeting your end well does not require wealth. :)All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
True.
Wealth sure helps you have a wonderful life before you meet your end, though. And that makes wealth matter, because life is about the journey, not the destination, and I would rather journey with a fat wallet and a few bottles of champagne than a thin wallet and an empty stomach.
Excepts from The Guardian
Trump says the global economy will explode unless he’s elected president. Then he makes a newish claim about Clinton, that she operates in secret “in order to enrich these global financial powers.” Trump says he read it in Wikileaks.
Lock her up! chants the crowd.
“Honestly, she should be locked up,” Trump says.
Trump says the election will reveal whether the country is a democracy or whether the levers of power “are in fact controlled by a small band of global interests rigging the system. This is reality, you know it, I know it...”Trump sounds distant in this speech. He’s talking about the invisible global network of elites and what they will do if you take them on.
“They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy... everything about you including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie... the Clintons are criminals, remember that. They’re criminals.
Trump now says he’s the victim of a concerted, coordinated and vicious attack.
“It’s not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment... as Wikileaks exposes documents” he says.
“These vicious claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false, and the Clintons know it. These claims are all fabricated, they’re pure fiction and they’re outright lies.”
Trump then attacks his alleged victims:
You take a look at these people, you study these people and you’ll understand.
He also calls the claims “preposterous” and “ludicrous.”
He says he has “substantial evidence” that he will reveal in the future to disprove the claims. “Even a simple investigation would have shown that these were nothing more than false smears.”
Trump says he’s preparing a lawsuit against the Times.
If he really is serious, I am actually afraid for Clinton's safety.
Or this is just some epic troll by him to weaken the US so much so Russia can move in or whateverIdon'tknow
Earlier, I think we had a link containing a talk with Trump's biographers - some of the people who know him better than anyone else. o wo/ I recommend reading that. Basically, their prediction is that Trump is likely to wage a kind of scorched-earth campaign right up until election day.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
Money only grants you power when there is a system to back it up. When the chips are down like that, the poor will eat the rich.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Money only grants you power when there is a system to back it up. When the chips are down like that, the poor will eat the rich.All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
Hence some of the lack of support from trump from donors. You want to milk the system. YOu need the system alive to do that...
Money only grants you power when there is a system to back it up. When the chips are down like that, the poor will eat the rich.All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.
I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.
And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...
"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."
Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?
The poor will eat the rich, and the poor, and everyone else in between, and then die alone and uncared for by an indifferent universe. What a great existence the rich missed out on by dying slightly earlier *twirls fingers*.
If Really Bad Things(TM) happen, the rich are only as screwed as everyone else*, preppers and survivalists aside. Until that point (if it ever comes), the rich are far better off. There are no reasonable scenarios where the lot in life for a rich person significantly worse than the Average Joe. They are either (hilariously) better off, or about as screwed as everyone else. Although frankly, if "the chips being down" is a serious point of concern for someone with a lot of money, they can prepare in ways the 99% can't ever hope to.
"There is a very slim chance your lot in life will suck as badly as everyone else" isn't really a downside to being rich. Until then, why not enjoy being powerful and superior, because in the view of many rich people there isn't a better alternative, especially if that whole "unbound by normal human standards of ethics and morality" thing doesn't bother them.
*maybe - money and property probably won't lose its value over night, and until it does the rich are likely to be in a far stronger position than you and me.
...
Hence some of the lack of support from trump from donors. You want to milk the system. YOu need the system alive to do that...
On the other hand, this is a downside to supporting Trump. The rich might not ultimately be worse off than the poor if Trump wins, but there is a very good chance they will be far worse off than if the Democratics win, and that strongly incentivizes supporting someone other than a hay-headed Oompa-Loompa Hitler wannabee.