Negatory

Yes! Preach gurl! Very. Important. Points. With. Periods. We. Totally. Consider. Evidence. On. This. Forum. So. It’s. Worth. Your. Time. To. Present. It. To. The. Group. And most importantly, even if convicted of 34 felonies, still innocent! It’s called cognitive dissonance people!

Translation: Because this is my side, I care more about technicalities than if our attorney general committed actual sex crimes against minors. Cherrypicking FBI results and choosing to get mad at which ones you want to get mad at is called “cognitive dissonance.” Hurr durr, Hunter laptop investigation bad and should be checked. Matt Gaetz sex crimes good. Seeing previous military officers compromise themselves is half funny half sad.

I want to echo ClearedHot here and say “Orange Man not my favorite.” But with that being said, I’d also like to say that his TS/SCI/SAP documents he stored at his house and lied about are NOTHING COMPARED TO HILLARY OR BIDEN. Have you seen the DNC lately? They recently tried to make me have gay sex with a transvestite immigrant. Fuck democrats. Thats the forum, buddy.

So there’s one extremely biased and oversimplified viewpoint. Heres another one for your consideration (over 80 republicans voted a week before): https://newrepublic.com/post/186541/marjorie-taylor-greene-hurricane-helene-relief-government-funding Also recall that congress has the power of the purse.

Bro, Trump is gonna let Christianity reign, and you gotta appreciate that. “States rights” is a dog whistle for we can finally jail people who get abortions. Which is a monumentally unpopular national policy and anyone who supports it is a piece of religiously indoctrinated trash. I bet some states would vote for segregated schools again, and this forum would celebrate that as some constitutional victory. Its hilariously out of touch. If you think that inflation is due to the Biden admin, you love propaganda. Trump only did quantitative easing his whole term and then had more cash incentives than Biden right before he was fired. What exactly do you think Biden did that caused inflation? Also, oil and gas drilling are at ALL TIME highs brother. This is also a real tough one for them because of record stock growth and record unemployment under Biden. So you have to suspend reality and say they are causing inflation when we know it was COVID response that caused it. The border is a real policy, and Biden and Kamala have done a poor job here. Focus here and maybe you’d sound less delusional. But it’s still a small subset of problems. Also hilarious to see these victims on here thinking they’re fighting the Nazis by voting for Trump. Trump has done his fair share of debasing the constitution, splitting the country, and wreaking havoc. People think just as much the guy who said he’d be a dictator on day 1, the guy who helped cause a literal riot on the capital after losing (which he hilariously admits now), and the guy who said he’d go after Harris campaign donors with jail time as a threat to democracy. Wake up and stop listening to talk radio as your only source of news Trump Foreign policy is working out greeeeaaat. China is surpassing us militarily and Iran essentially has nukes. Both things Trump helped with. Cool! The republicans unfortunately are gonna lose because they can’t say that Trump is a disaster. Hopefully he doesn’t run again and the republicans can actually have a real policy baseline that isn’t just repackaged theology. Youll see that many believe the policies that matter aren’t different enough. So now it comes down to abortion (Trump loses). It comes down to trust and hope (Trump heavily loses). It comes down to not having Jan 6 happen again (Trump loses). You just needed to ditch Trump, the way that the Dems ditched Biden. Rs deserve this.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - 1984

Listen, don’t take it the wrong way. Biden just didn’t have a chance, and now it’s looking like things are advantage-Dems. The republicans are now scrambling because their whole platform was just making fun of Biden with almost no substantive policy. Why do Republicans not just guarantee the win by putting forth a slightly less divisive, less old, more moderate candidate? I (and many others) would vote for a different Republican over Harris (although I do like Walz).

All of the arguments here the past couple of weeks: It’s not that hard. Pick a new candidate and you’d have a chance. The Dems did it and are gonna win because of it. If Rs had gone Nikki Haley before Biden dropped out, this wouldn’t even be close. Trump can only win against a candidate at terrible as Biden.

Sorry you don’t believe in the justice system. Read the case. 12 jurors decided unanimously he committed a crime. You just want to say it’s BS because it fits your narrative, but I am 100% certain you haven’t looked into it further. The evidence is clearly there. Just stick your fingers further in your ears.

You literally did exactly what I said you would do. A non sequitur that focuses only on one failure and entirely avoids addressing the absolutely appalling and sad performance from Trump as well, because you are so polarized and don’t want Biden to win. Check your morals brother. Don’t be blinded by politics.

So those are our choices… a billionaire felon who no one can trust because he will aggressively lie without any guilt. Or a geriatric guy who can’t be trusted to form cogent thoughts or walk down two steps without the help of his wife. And the best part? The system is set up for all of you to entirely ignore your candidate and just say how absurd it is that the other side is considering voting for their “choice.” How are we the people not revolting over these two being our choices? What a joke that THAT isn’t being talked about more in place of partisan politics. Knowing this forum, incoming non sequitur about how Trump is better than Biden. I truly don’t care, they are both unacceptable options. Democracy looking not so good right now.

Okay. Way ahead of you here. Economic: They achieved multiple milestones from the 80s to present day ahead of schedule. They have delivered on promises to virtually eliminate poverty and increase the quality of life of their society. You said that we don't have to do anything to beat China economically except wait. I think a lot of other countries think that about the US. We are not closing our debt gap and we are not becoming more competitive (except in niche areas in tech). Also, our middle class is shrinking while theirs is growing. As one example of international competitiveness, Tesla is getting F'd because they can realistically only compete with the 15 other Chinese EV makers in a tariff environment like the US, where we make it cost 25% more for them to deliver. In Asia, the EU, and everywhere else, American industry is becoming less competitive. As another example, we lost the Chip War for microelectronic chips in the 70s through the 2000s. We literally only have Micron, which produces RAM, because we were not competitive with other countries. Military: They have achieved multiple milestones from the 90s to today. They are set to deliver on future milestones that challenge US dominance. They also don't have to maintain an empire, they get to operate in an A2AD environment or within the bounds of close asia environments to achieve their goals. I'm good not talking about specifics here, but I am sure you'd rather us not go to war in an away game with China and understand how it wouldn't be a good thing for us. Also, good luck closing the Strait of Malacca and just chillin. First, doing that militarily is not trivial especially with anti ship systems the Chinese have. And we live in a glass house too, you know? Don't think our society or economy would like it very much either. Diplomatic: They are actively shifting the tide of public perception in ASEAN, Europe, and Africa. Just this year, perceptions have shifted, unfortunately not in our favor, with, for the first time ever, most ASEAN countries saying that they would choose to align with China over the US if forced to choose. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/us-loses-its-spot-to-china-as-southeast-asias-most-favored-ally-survey-finds.html Information: They control the information narrative in China. We control very little here. This is unarguably an advantage for a great power competition. https://freedomhouse.org/report/beijing-global-media-influence/2022/authoritarian-expansion-power-democratic-resilience Pay: https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/global_labor_rates_china_is_no_longer_a_low_cost_country You'll like that because the title supports your point that China isn't a low cost country. But then the data inside shows that managers in the US are paid 6 times as much as managers in China, and it shows that they do production for $12,000 a year. They say US machine workers will work for $33,000 but give me a fucking break. Not a chance. You know literally no skilled blue collar worker that would accept less than $60k a year. There is no realistic factory lifestyle young people can go do. Here's another one for you to look at, again, biased to the US because it was created by us: https://reshoringinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GlobalLaborRateComparisons.pdf I'd love to see a non-biased, non US produced (without a political agenda), source that shows that wages are near parity. You aren't gonna be able to find it. I'm not going to argue that there are cheaper places like Mexico we can exploit. Great, let's go do it. But they can do that too (what is stopping China from finding a country like Mexico for these types of tasks?), and their population doesn't need their decadent wages to stay happy. We are still at a wholesale disadvantage. And if you want to talk about military, nationalizing defense companies turns out is getting to be pretty fucking effective. Try to argue with me that Lockheed and Boeing are better than their companies. I will have to disagree from a cost effectiveness perspective and a time perspective. There are many estimates that their $200-300B they spend a year goes significantly farther than the $800B we spend a year. And they have been able to develop truly disruptive capabilities like hypersonic missiles and other assassin's mace weapons because they don't have to get 50 senators to agree to cancel an outdated weapons systems concept like the Carrier. https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/china-isnt-just-spending-more-its-spending-smarter https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128 Remind me what hasn't followed plan again? Demographics: This is our one point of potential advantage. But this isn't going to happen for decades, and if they can keep their population mentally prepared to work by identifying the problem early and banding together (their society is infinitely more collectivist than our individualist society), they actually have a chance to emerge victorious. And for us to maintain our advantage here, we have to accept significant immigration to bolster our deadening birth rates. While Hispanic and minority birth rates and population growth make up a huge portion of our young demographics, we are currently becoming more isolationist and closed-borders. Yeah, and they have an inherent anchoring bias. Ray Dalio paints a picture that the US is on the decline - not that China will long-term supplant the US. He says it's likely that China will supplant us in the short term, but he doesn't really talk about the longevity of their empire other than to promise us that, one day, they too will fail. That is the argument. I am fine with believing that China can only momentarily usurp us, if at all, especially due to demographic issues. But then someone else will take over. It won't be us. Again, I ask, has an empire beat the long term cycle? Why will we be able to sustain power forever?

Estate tax is levied on net assets. Passing the $2000 of stock and $1000 loan on your assets to an heir would be taxed the same as passing $1000 to an heir. So the capital gains that were "borrowed" don't get hit by the estate tax either. Then, once the heir gains the assets, their basis resets. Plus, regardless, it entirely negates the tax during the life of the individual. Estate taxes exist no matter what. Income and/or capital gains are supposed to exist before said person dies. Additionally, even if you don't believe that this is possible and they will be hit by some tax at some point, you seem to agree that they can defer taxes. There is always a benefit to paying taxes later in the time value of money.

Pretty fucking good? Best economy in history? One of the greatest increases in QoL ever seen in history? You mad you have to pay $50k of taxes on your $200k salary so that you can still take home more than 99% of the rest of the world? Also, good luck funding the Manhattan project or global military without an income tax. If you want to go back to pre-1913 US, I hope you're equally ready to experience the significantly lower quality of life that comes with not having a funded government or military that can wield national power. Frontier living wasn't that sweet. Double edged sword here (regressive policy) that hurts the working class more. Billionaires need low interest loans to keep wealth they don't need. Workers need it to purchase essentials like housing, transportation, and food. Raise the interest rates and the only people that actually may starve are poor people. Sure it does. Want to talk about ethical frameworks? From a utilitarian approach, it is beneficial to the group (society) and only marginally affects people who are entirely way too well-off, therefore it is most likely in the best interest for the largest number of people. There's an ethical argument. From a common good approach, it seems to make sense that people with means that are significantly greater than others should contribute to their fellow citizens. There's an ethical argument. Now you can argue that it is unethical from your point of view or from a specific framework. But in the end it's all just feelings. That's ethics. Ethical arguments do not have to take into account second and third order consequences, but I would love to talk to some of them if you'd like. I will point out that your statement about Democratic legislation also can easily be applied to Republican legislation - it's a useless statement with no evidence or warrant. But you always throw some baseless point in your arguments about the dems being the problem (with essentially no proof or evidence). If you are saying the US government, as in the federal government that has existed since the 1930s, is ineffective, then I agree and disagree. If you are saying that this is a Biden problem, I'll disagree. I do agree that you have to lock your currency to something that doesn't let the government devalue it. But once you've left, you can't go back. Have you seen the government operate even on a CR where they don't get their 3% increase? The Air Force modernization folks damn near shut down. If you lock the currency now, you are effectively stating that you will significantly curtail spending in every single government expenditure for the next 50+ years. Which, sure, might be necessary, but not if you want to maintain the quality of life you have or the benefits of the American empire. The natural progression of fixed currencies to fiat systems has been seen for millennia in countless societies from the Romans to the Chinese to the Dutch to the British to, now, us. While you are correct that it is partially driven by the ultra-wealthy, it is also driven by populist governments and the middle class and working class demanding their lives be improved. When you run out of real growth, you have to create it with Fiat. So you as the government decouple and you pump money into the system to continue the growth. There is literally no stopping this in the natural cycle of nations. Show me one example. Obama did quantitative easing. Trump did a shitload of quantitative easing. Biden is actually tightening, which is a laudable act, but there's still $7T on the balance sheet. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm It's the old saying hard times strong men, strong men easy times, easy times weak men, blah blah blah. Well we are in the weak men times. And you are the weak men. And I am a weak man. I EXPECT to be paid $250k a year for a job that lets me telework part time. It's actually absurd. But I expect to be paid that because my fellow countrymen have equally ridiculous expectations. I can't get fast food now without paying $15. This is a positive feedback cycle that cannot be fixed in a pretty way. You either have the country explode into revolution to do what you said, or you choose slow relegation to a shit economy like the UK has been seeing the past 50 years. No, it's not. You don't understand stepped up basis. This is what is done. 1) Buy: buy an asset and have it appreciate. Say you spend $1000 on a stock and it is now worth $2000. This is $1000 in capital gains 2) Borrow: instead of selling $1000 of stock and paying capital gains tax on $1000, pledge $1000 of stock as collateral for a loan of $1000 that you can spend as you see fit 3) Die: keep holding the stock and loan until you die. Your heir can sell the stock for $2000 with no capital gains due to step-up basis rules. Look at this rule, this is what you don't understand, and I didn't understand for a long time. Using the new basis, pay off your $1000 loan, and have $1000 leftover in cash (the original value of the stock) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stepped-up_basis Stepped up basis allows inheritors of a stock to change the basis to the value at the time a person inherits it rather than the value of it when it was originally purchased. No capital gains are paid on inherited stock. You have spent $1000 on a stock, used $1000 of the gains to buy stuff with, and passed the original $1000 to your descendants without ever paying taxes on those gains in your lifetime. They happily go into your estate intact and with no capital gains tax due.