ok, so did Donald Trump win or lose in this election?

[misterbonkers]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That isn't whataboutism, ya retard.

The fact that you can't defend her really means I won. Good day, sir.

Keep supporting fascism [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why am i going to defend someone completely different than the person we've been discussing? try reading the article next time

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by misterbonkers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why am i going to defend someone completely different than the person we've been discussing? try reading the article next time

No, it's happening in Broward County too.

Also, if she was "just doing her job", then why would she lose a court case and be court ordered to do her job correctly?

[misterbonkers]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, it's happening in Broward County too.

Also, if she was "just doing her job", then why would she lose a court case and be court ordered to do her job correctly?

how is that "threatening journalists with jail time"

the court case was about them being destroyed early. keyword early. it's entirely within her job description to handle the destruction of ballots.

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by misterbonkers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

how is that "threatening journalists with jail time"

the court case was about them being destroyed early. keyword early. it's entirely within her job description to handle the destruction of ballots.

Do you not see the police blocking the journalists?

Also, her job is not to destroy ballots early.

That is not her job. That's illegal as fuck.

[misterbonkers]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you not see the police blocking the journalists?

Also, her job is not to destroy ballots early.

That is not her job. That's illegal as fuck.

and they got let in not long after that tweet

and i agree, so does the court. i never claimed otherwise. what's your point?

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If Republicans actually believed their own BS -- they would have eliminated taxes for the working middle and poor a long time ago. Not to mention they would have targeted income tax for cuts....not god damn capital gains.

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:

Originally Posted by Alexander Fraser Tytler

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.

In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:


In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

US is a constitutional republic and poll taxes are unconstitutional.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:

The nature of the free market is to concentrate more and more wealth among those who already have the most capital. It's far easier to earn $100k when you have $10 million than it is when you only have $100k. It's only right to concentrate taxes there as well, to counteract that force, less we descend into aristocracy / gilded age robber barony.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

That sounds great to me.

[Wonkie]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's be real here: the poor and even quite some of the middle class are already in net negative tax territory when you add in the social net benefits. Romney may have lost the election, but he wasn't wrong when he said that having over 50% of voters be net tax recipients is a recipe for disaster, and it's been well known for quite some time:


In your opinion, would 0% up to $50K, 15% after that, no deductions, and you can't vote if you don't pay at least 5% of your income in taxes? Remember, if the remaining taxpayers vote for candidates that cut benefits, there will be more net tax payers voting.

Here's the problem with that measurement. It doesn't capture the fact that incomes and business opportunity influenced by the federal government (basically everything to varying degrees) have a huge impact on the wage people earn in America.

There are quite a few people -- right now -- that used to pay more tax than they recieve from transfers, that now do not because of international trade agreements.

You recognize the danger that people can vote to tax income that isn't theirs and use that money for things that benefit themselves. But seem completely ignorant of the fact that people can (often behind the scenes in congressional committees) use the government to make sure they are the ones with more income in the first place, or that others have less.