Plus, he said in a personal text, "we" will stop him not specifying "we". And you take that as enough evidence for a conspiracy. It's so laughably ridiculous. I mean it's one word in a private text. — Baden

It's a written communication, where he expresses the desire that some faction, which includes him, will "stop it" (Trump's election). It's laughable to think that the "we" didn't refer to the FBI.

If by "we" he meant the FBI, would he admit it? Yeah probably not. That cynical acknowledgement obviously doesn't mean he is lying about the message being more benign than it appears on the surface, and his explanation sounded plausible enough, but this is the FBI after all and they apparently have a history of politicization and corruption.

equally bad. — Agustino

Hey, you're halfway there. :party: :cheer:



I didn't say it didn't. But haven't you heard anyone ever sound off about something they couldn't follow up with? Saying we'll do this, we'll do that while actually just sounding off because they can't? That never occurred to you? Instead you think the conspiracy theory is more plausible. Really? Common, dude! :)

But haven't you heard anyone ever sound off about something they couldn't follow up with? Saying we'll do this, we'll do that while actually just sounding off because they can't? That never occurred to you? Instead you think the conspiracy theory is more plausible. Really? Common, dude! :) — Baden

Even if he couldn't follow up with it, the fact that he indicated to anyone that the FBI may be used for such purposes is disgraceful to say the least...

I agree it's disgraceful and anti-democratic if he said that meaning the FBI, but if he was sounding off as we all do sometimes it's not something that requires any further thought. Look, if there is a real conspiracy here, it's likely to be discovered. My bet is there isn't. Let's say I'm 95% on that. I'd put money on it if I could get decent odds. What's your bet. Do you really think the conspiracy is more likely?

However, at least Trump appears to be more honest and stick to his values and points with regards to the other issues (immigration, tax cuts, Obama care, etc.). — Agustino

Stick to his values. Good one.

Let's say I'm 95% on that. I'd put money on it if I could get decent odds. What's your bet. Do you really think the conspiracy is more likely? — Baden

Yes, I think no conspiracy is less likely than 95%. At the very least, I'm quite sure there will be evidence for the intent to create a conspiracy. Let's say 75% on that.

OK, we'll see. I won't forget this any more than you didn't forget my Hillary prediction. :D

OK, we'll see. I won't forget this any more than you didn't forget my Hillary prediction. :D — Baden

Perfect ;)

I remember going around in circles with my buddy @Agustino over how he could square his high moral standards with support of someone as immoral as Trump. Pragmatism I suppose. One odd thing about Trump is that he lies about the most ridiculous things while also being honest in other areas that a "normal" politician would definitely lie, e.g. his tacit acknowledgement that using loopholes to avoid paying taxes makes him "smart". Not sure if anyone else could have gotten away with being that candid. Strange dude.

Interesting that it was on Strzok's computer where the change was made for Hillary Clinton's verdict from "Grossly negligent" to "extremely careless".

"Grossly negligent" attracts a criminal prosecution.

Now match that with Strzok's txts: "Trump's an idiot, a bleeping idiot, Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to one,"

and

Lisa Page. ‘Trump’s not ever going to be president, right?’ Srzok replied, ‘No, no, he’s not. We’ll stop it.’


Yeah sure, of course not only was he apparently not biased but also did not act from his bias.

This guy seamlessly transitioned from investigation of Hillary, and henceforth her exoneration, and onto the Russia/Trump conspiracy theory investigation.

At least taxes should be a flat tax. The big problem with current tax regs is Monopoly companies, or just super large international companies, paying zero tax particularly in countries other than where they are geographically based and registered.

There should be no taxes on income, ideally.

Strzok's claim that "every American has political beliefs but the vast majority of them are not biased" was pretty ridiculous imo. Bias is an obvious, pervasive aspect of human existence in general, and is particularly pronounced in today's political scene.

I'll have to go back and check though to see if I misunderstood or misinterpreted his words. But he's clearly too experienced and too intelligent to hold such a naive view, and once that's eliminated as an explanation there seems to be only one other possibility: he was being disingenuous.

Doesn't mean there was a grand conspiracy, of course, but it did raise a red flag for me concerning his credibility.

There's an fun Zizekian analysis to be made here. One of Zizek's long running themes is that what binds communities together are shared secrets and 'in-jokes' - or more specifically, knowledge of which kinds of transgressions of official rules are actually OK (think of the new employee who doesn't realize that everyone leaves early on Friday. Were he or she to really insist on the rule, he or she would be cast out from the 'group'). The idea is that these shared transgressions are quite literally the glue that brings communities together (much more so than any shared ideals or identities).

Anyway, Trump's political effectiveness lies in the way he wields those rules, and identifies all the more strongly with them: he taps into this shared underbelly to acknowledge and play with those rules. Hence the 'wink wink' character of his tax evasion stuff, for example. The upshot of course is that Trump then is anything but an outsider here to 'bend the rules'. On the contrary, his success lies in adhering to the rules more effectively than most. Outsiders, true outsides, who aim to alter the rules of transgression, are the real threat to the order of things. Trump is, for the most part, right at home in the political environment he finds himself in. Which is a sad indictment on that environment.

There should be no taxes on income, ideally. — raza

But then the Government won't have enough money to pay benefit scroungers who are too lazy to work, and then how am I going to afford my beer and MacBook Pro?

Precisely! Zizek's insight actually pinpoints what I've intuited about Trump (despite being been unable to articulate it) quite well. That is a big part of what makes him effective.

It's like we live in a world largely built upon lies, however small and seemingly insignificant these may be, and he somehow exploits this collective insincerity to his advantage.

He didn't create this situation, though, and in a strange way maybe his presidency represents a sort of "cunning of history" in which something more genuine will arise once he's gone. Probably not.

My tax plan is;

Not tax on income.

High tax (could be 30 to 40%) on non necessities. E.g, Mac pro, beer, new cars, new furniture, new tv's etc.

No tax on essential food items.

What could this also create? Not only cheaper food but recycling (buying 2nd hand goods, making things yourself).

How about no income tax for the working class and tax the rich elites more? Why is it so hard to agree to that? Anyone would think you were on their side just like Trump is... Could it be that all your talk of supporting the working class is just empty and you are just as pro-elite as him? :chin:

Not tax on income.

High tax (could be 30 to 40%) on non necessities. E.g, Mac pro, beer, new cars, new furniture, new tv's etc. — raza

So the poor will be even more worse off? Because below a certain threshold they don't pay taxes anyway. Instead in your scenario they'll pay more on anything that isn't basic food and second-hand crap.

:lol: Your plan is a trillion dollar give away to the rich elites you claim to be against.

Let's try again raza. You say you're on the side of the working class so:

How about no income tax for the working class and tax the rich elites more? — Baden

Should be trivially easy to agree with. Take tax dollars the elites have taken from the deficit (and therefore from everyone) and instead let the working class benefit. This would also be good for the economy because the working class tend to spend what they have rather than save. Increased consumer spending leads to increased economic growth. So, unless you were lying about caring more about the working class than the elites, you're a social democrat just like me.

Ah, but the working class are just temporarily embarrassed elites Baden. So really you're hurting the working class.

No. The rich provide jobs. Jobs for those that would not even want to do what the rich do to get rich.

Many crazy rich people work ridiculous hours to get rich. Someone like me just likes working as a craftsman because it is pleasurable. Don't like office environments and don't like office work hours.

Most people just want more free time, even if the pay is less, and play around with their kids + make stuff at home, and also enjoy a more intimate community.

Let those mad crazy people work those crazy office hours or crazy hours related to running a business enterprise and therefore let them get rich in the way they consider wealth to mean.

It does not make sense to make those types resentful by taxing them for their ingenuity.

So, you're on the side of rich elites because they all create jobs (which is nonsense, business owners and entrepreneurs create jobs, most rich people don't create anything). At least you've stopped pretending now.

:vomit:

Seems an oversimplified scenario.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of wealth accumulated by their families. These same people, in my admittedly limited experience, are far more likely to buy up properties and extract rents from working people than open up businesses and create jobs.

On the other hand, lots of poor people I know work their asses off, sometimes with multiple jobs, just to afford basic necessities.

I know, if only we could find a way to stop folks who want to give the working class a better tax deal from oppressing them, we could all live in Trump's dumbtopia. :lol:

So the poor will be even more worse off? Because below a certain threshold they don't pay taxes anyway. Instead they pay more on anything that isn't basic food and second-hand crap — Michael

The "poor" require incentive IF they desire new stuff.

Second-hand "crap"? That's elitism right there. Second hand does not mean crap. People are so fickle and narcissistic that they go for the latest thing just to have the latest thing.

I exploit those narcissists by picking up second hand bargains while enjoying the good life on the cheap.

Such narcissists deserve to pay higher tax for their status symbols (merely a consequence of their unresolved childhood issues).

This sycophantic worship of rich elites by the likes of @raza I really don't get even though Zizek (seeing as Street brought him up) reckons it's Calvinism's fault. To a European, it's insane.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of wealth accumulated by their families. These same people, in my admittedly limited experience, are far more likely to buy up properties and extract rents from working people than open businesses and create jobs — Erik

Under my scheme they would pay the greater tax......because they buy new stuff + want to flash their symbols of status.

We can exploit their unresolved childhood neurosis, and they won't even mind. Let them feel above. Letting them feel above keeps them exploitable.

Under my scheme they would pay the greater tax — raza

No, they wouldn't. They pay about 35% of their income in income tax. There is no way your increased consumer taxes on some goods would more than counterbalance that. You're making stuff up again. Or, if you think it would, provide evidence this time. Show us the numbers.