Welcome to Thunderdome

Who's worse. The people that put Trump in power? Or the group of people that couldn't find ONE person who was better than Trump? I mean, the D's couldn't even beat Trump. Are they more competent when it comes to running things? When you can't even find one person better than Trump to put on the ticket, you need to do some soul searching of your own before judging the other cult!

It's easily the billionaire class who went full pro-fund-facism the instant someone said they might have to pay some taxes.

All 900 of them?

Troy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:40 pm That is the fate of fascist when the populace isn’t completely cowed.

Or they get voted out.

Troy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:42 pm It's easily the billionaire class who went full pro-fund-facism the instant someone said they might have to pay some taxes.

Well, that's just factually incorrect. Second source. Third source. Fourth source.

Also, can you please tell me what they're supposed to be paying?

Brady (2024) finds that the top 10 percent of filers earned nearly half of all income in 2022 but were responsible for 72 percent of all income taxes paid. Furthermore, evidence shows that the top 25 percent of filers have consistently paid at least 73 percent of all income taxes paid since 1980.[4]

I'm not defending the rich, it's just that I hear "the rich need to pay their fair share" a lot, but nobody has been able to explain to me what that means. And yes, I'm very aware of tax loopholes, offshore accounts, and blah blah blah. Those aren't real arguments though, especially based on the numbers in the quote above.

How much more than the 73% do they need to pay? And how do you tax someone like Bezos who has most of his wealth tied up in unrealized gains? He's one market crash away from being poor. Ok, not really, but I'm just trying to make a point that a lot of his wealth is on paper, and thus, not real. How do you tax something that doesn't exist? Catt and I discussed this many moons ago and we have no real solution, nor could we find anyone that does.

Using the rich to rile up the masses for votes, justification for violence, etc. is a tactic as old as government. Look up any socialist, communist, authoritarian regime, and their history will almost always (really it's always, but I like to allow for exceptions) include some culling of the rich or the haves.

That's why I'm very skeptical of that particular campaign...every single time it's used.

Isn't the real issue the people who spend those taxes dollars? You know, the same ones who point to the rich and say "They're not paying their fair share!" They're the ones who decide how to spend that money. Nobody, R or D, can honestly say there isn't a fuckton of bloat in our government's spending. A government desperately in debt. A problem both D and R presidents have said is a huge issue and cannot continue to be ignored. But, here we are. Rs and Ds spending us into bankruptcy using our money and giving away our future and nobody will hold them accountable.

We can't even get them to turn over a list of actual pedophiles. You know, the one the Ds had for four years and wouldn't release, but now it's Trump's fault it isn't out?

Speaking of, this is a new one. Got sources? Not defending Trump, if there's one person who looks like they visited Epstein island, it's him. Just curious about any claim regarding the case.

Troy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 1:40 pm had him on the island-for-committing-pedophilia nearly a dozen times.

I think a whole lot of cultists on both sides of the aisle are going to go through some stages of denial if that actual list ever sees the light of day. I know several cultists who staunchly think it's the other party's problem.

As an aside, I think every single Epstein customer, I don't give a fuck who they are, should be publicly tried and executed (if found guilty). What they did is worse than murder.

Billionaire spending heavily favored Republicans. Over two-thirds (70%) of billionaire-family contributions went in support of GOP candidates and conservative causes. Less than a quarter (23%) backed Democratic hopefuls and progressive causes. (The remainder went to committees without a clear partisan or ideological identity.)

Not reading anymore.

This forum has always been about fair and open discussion. This isn't Reddit, TruthSocial, or BlueSky. We have always wanted to hear from all sides, and more importantly, we post knowing what we post will be scrutinized. Nobody is attacking one another here when we post a different opinion. It's discussion. It's about not being stuck in an echo chamber. Believe it or not, I use things I learn here when discussing politics with other folks, both R and D.

I cannot stress enough that any counter I ever make to your posts is NOT a personal attack. I'm simply trying to learn, have a discussion, and hope you want the same. I mean, why post if you're not trying to have a discussion or influence someone? (Yes Catt, trolling without malicious intent is also acceptable.)

That being said, you just made a post suggesting POTUS was planning to overthrow the government, has people randomly getting snatched off the streets as a practice run, has visited Epstein Island a dozen times for the purpose of pedophilia, and belongs in jail. And followed it up by implying that all the billionaires got together to ensure Trump won the election.

You came in HOT with some very strong statements, and being a curious person, I asked for clarity.

In return, you posted an unattributed quote versus four linked sources (from across the political spectrum I might add), and then said you were done reading.

First of all, the majority of billionaires backed Harris as the 4 links I posted proved. Secondly, the Harris campaign outraised Trump's.

Those are facts, not opinions, so how do you think your unattributed quote proves your point? How does it offset every poll that showed most Americans were not happy with Biden's policies, the direction of the country, they didn't like Harris, etc.?

BTW, the rest of my post wasn't about this issue.

I don't like: The selling off of chips that used to be security concerns, but apparently if there's enough cash...

I like: The EO and subsequent moves to codify an end to morality/politics forced by payment services who act based upon loud, vocal minorities like that Australian mother's group that has like 7 members.

Leisher wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 3:57 pm I like: The EO and subsequent moves to codify an end to morality/politics forced by payment services who act based upon loud, vocal minorities like that Australian mother's group that has like 7 members.

Only if they let porn places take cards.

Leisher wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 3:57 pm I don't like: The selling off of chips that used to be security concerns, but apparently if there's enough cash...

I like: The EO and subsequent moves to codify an end to morality/politics forced by payment services who act based upon loud, vocal minorities like that Australian mother's group that has like 7 members.

What is this in reference to?

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 7:26 pm What is this in reference to?

The latest instance.

I think the most adult game I've ever played was Leisure Suit Larry, but it doesn't take much to go from those games to GTA.

And it's not just gaming, or porn as Catt pointed out, it's anything and everything LEGAL. Activist groups shouldn't be able to pressure payment companies to block legal activities. Remember, this sort of tactic was used against truck driver protestors and their supporters in Canada.

If you were asking about the chips, Trump has allowed some chips to now be sold to China for their AI efforts, but in return the U.S. is getting some payments. Not enough to put a dent in the national debt.

Trump wrote an EO to make burning the U.S. flag illegal.

Nope. That's a violation of the 1st amendment.

Yeah, I don't get these EOs. They're not laws.

I really have no problem with the concept. A president should have some way to tell the government how to operate. However, it doesn't give the president power over SCOTUS or Congress.

Where I get lost is EOs that apply to citizens, like this flag burning one (it being unconstitutional aside). How is that the president's job? It's a law. The president isn't there to make laws. They KNOW this won't hold up, so why bother?

And this isn't just a Trump problem, although his do seem pretty frivolous (although that could be recency bias). He'll possibly set the record, but Obama really put EOs on the map, Trump followed up, then so did Biden, and now here we are again. Lately, all of these presidents have been acting like they're the top authority, and not one of three or the authority in a specific area.

A whole lot of people in government need to retake government classes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/gl ... rcna226828

Postal providers in Belgium, Denmark and New Zealand are among several operators that have already suspended shipments of packages to the U.S. until they can retool their systems to comply with the new rules. Letters and documents are generally unaffected.

I have issues with the de minimis as a way to avoid tariffs (China), but this seems overly restrictive.

Trump had a weirdly blank schedule last week. Current theory is stroke.

Hmmm.

Heard all that this weekend. He's speaking today, so we'll see.

Maybe, just maybe, we should elect younger presidents? Yeah, health issues can hit any age, but the last two presidents were in danger zone territory.

Alive and well enough to hide if anything did happen.

As for his point...eh...if we're being honest, only the MSM, the D party, and the most culty of cultists really thought Biden's health was good during his presidency.

Op Ed on what happened to America.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs-report ... ?st=kiHSSf

22,000 jobs added. Unemployment at 4.3%.