Negatory

This forum is about to eat up right wing propaganda stating the government shutdown is the Dem’s fault. Even though it’s a Republican controlled House that didn’t pass a budget bill. Guess it would probably be too embarrassing to admit that President Musk’s tweets to tell republicans to not pass any bills had more impact than First Lady Trump. https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump-backed-spending-bill-voted-down-house-with-government-shutdown-looming.amp

The irony in this statement is quite honestly hilarious. Let me break it down by demonstrating how the “other side” would use the exact same drivel: “I don’t think Biden is a saint, but I also think that your calling him a criminal when he has clearly been targeted by the exact type of personal prosecution that Trump used as an excuse to dismiss charges against himself is ironic.” Realize you live in a bubble that you have created - or allow to exist - yourself. I fully agree that people like Biden and Hillary should face the consequence of their actions. If you want to selectively ignore the hundred of pages of legal evidence along with dozens of claims that Trump is a financial, national security, and sex criminal, while coming to this forum excited about Hunter Biden crime pdfs, you’re biased. The compromise of values is when you selectively choose to only criticize one side of politics because you want to “win.” It is reasonable to vote for Trump just as it’s reasonable to vote for Kamala as long as you can be critical of their faults. Problem is, you guys can’t be. It’s not socially acceptable for your bubbles. And yes, I hear the counter arguments now, “I never said I liked Trump.” You guys just typically draw the line at calling him out for his crimes for some reason.

Sorry, do you know what whataboutism is or do you just say big words to try to sound smart? And are you intending to be this divisive? I clearly addressed the point you made by stating that Biden should not have pardoned Hunter. Even called it an abuse of power. Done. Whataboutism would have had me avoid that point and only talk about counter accusations. Stating that Trump is also bad (and has and almost definitely would have done the same) after addressing your point is simply a sarcastic observation. You all are just scared to approach those comments because none of you know how to effectively address them. Or you struggle to understand how to reconcile the obvious paradoxes in your moral compasses within what you would like to believe are superior conservative worldviews. A worldview in which you all gloat about electing a cheating, lying, criminal into the presidency. Yes, I have citations. At least you can cope by focusing blindly on how the other side is bad. It’s called cognitive dissonance as I’ve stated numerous times before. I get it, Kamala sucks. I’m glad she didn’t win in many ways, just like you. But you guys are compromising your own morals and doing more harm than good for society with how you address those that were slightly on the other side of the scales when deciding between two absolute turds. China right now is excited you are playing into their hands. Meme posted on Election Day made me think of you all:

Totally unacceptable to pardon your son like that, an abuse of power. Which is why Dems are obviously publicly upset and non supportive. https://www.mediaite.com/news/biden-supporters-slam-hunter-biden-pardon-decision-utter-bullsht/ The good thing is, we’re finally getting a president in the seat that wouldn’t abuse his power to pardon folks simply because they’re family related. For example, wouldn’t it be crazy if a sitting president pardoned his daughter’s father in law, just because he has close ties? And he surely wouldn’t do that to then make him a high ranking ambassador in a future administration. That would be absolutely absurd, something a democrat would do. I for one am glad that we are going to uncover the corruption of all people, regardless of their position, party, ties, or influence. Every person charged with felonies, regardless of who they are, should face the consequences of those actions, especially if convicted by the legal system.

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.

What evidence is there that a nation can ever defeat the cyclical pattern of natural rise and decline of great powers? How will our economy, whose workers demand to be paid 3-5 times as much as an equivalent Chinese person, remain competitive? How will we deal with wealth inequality again? You guys want the nice solution of what FDR did for America in the 30s, or do you want the more likely solution resembling the French guillotine? Oh, right, no one wants either. Well history says it’s between those if you want change. You can’t fight and defeat China forever, so it’s probably advantageous to not destroy our blood and treasure in trying to stop them from harnessing their natural advantages of population, wages, and national unity that we just don’t have. Why not acclimatize to the idea that a multipolar world is an eventuality, and we only get to prolong what we have if we don’t destroy it all in a war? If we’re spending 4-5 times as much on the military as China is and not able to impact them effectively, there is no winning move. We overextended. We got too comfortable. We allowed the rich to take too much. 122% debt to GDP, $1.8T deficit, $34T debt. The dollar will cease to be the reserve currency within our life times. Only way out is for the American people to simultaneously stop infighting, accept a significant cut to current QoL (think ~40-50% reduction in salary expectation), and to gut any gov spending that doesn’t provide ROI. We can’t do that. We can barely even have a civil discussion between military officers about politics when they disagree. That’s pragmatism.

The US gov already does tax unrealized gains with home valuations and property taxes. Is that unconstitutional or unethical? What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth? It is clearly tax evasion that is harmful to the US gov and not in line with the intent of the tax system. Also, I hope you are being honest brokers in this debate and are aware that the changes only apply to net worths >$100M. It is likely literally never going to directly impact any of you, the middle class, the upper professional class, or anyone in your family. It is aimed at only the ultra wealthy. Not to mention, the proposal makes these taxes prepayments for future gains. If they have future realized gains, they get to deduct previous payments. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/ Now explain: - How is this bad for the working class (my definition includes everyone from McDonalds to Anesthesiologists making $1M a year). People that have to work to live. - What are the negatives to the economy? You won’t get trickled down on? - What is your solution? If you don’t have a solution, why is the current state better morally or ethically?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/cia-and-committee-free-asia-under-project-dtpillar Interesting how Americans don’t get taught about these things. Still operating by the way.

This is the actual end of the thread. We're addressing the argument that evangelicals voted for Trump, right? You're saying that it's made up. Embrace the facts homie. White evangelical protestants voted republican 6 times more often than they voted democrat. Catholics 5 to 4. LDS 3 to 1. Do you want more evidence of this stupid ass claim that you are denying for no reason? By the way, these are rational, cogent arguments based on data, so stop with the BS about the connection being "tenuous at best" and inappropriate in "rational debate." You're making yourself look intentionally obtuse. Also, you CAN very easily say that democrats support BLM. That is backed by data. In 2023, 84% of dems support it. Only 17% of republicans do. What is wrong with you saying this? This is a RATIONAL argument. Doubt. Here i'll respond to this appeal to emotion right here! I hope this atones for "our" sins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance Congressman Hank Johnson on Guam tipping over - how is this person in charge Democrat saying the moon is made of gas - this person should lose their job permanently Ilhan Omar on Israel Palestine - wtf Extreme leftists on LGBTQIA transgender issues that don't matter - stupid AF and not important Extreme leftists on welfare or UBI for no reason with no plan - fuck off Nancy Pelosi engaging in obviously unethical stock trading - let's figure out what crime this is Joe Biden losing his mind due to dementia - please for the love of god give me a new candidate, but you better believe that I will also call out Trump for being senile Biden mishandling classified documents - investigate Clinton mishandling classified - investigate Political appointees in the IC playing divisive political games in 2016-2020 - this is fucked Is there anyone else you want "us" to call out specifically so that you can feel like we are more fair? Did we miss some required condemnation thread? Please send a flyer next time. To end this pointless defense of the indefensible (that there isn't as much difference between basic, non-extreme, R's and D's as this R-focused echo-chamber that is baseops likes to believe), have I missed the R's on this board being critical of R politicians making seditious comments (just quoted), the assault on the capitol on Jan 6 done by republican fringes, or the minimization of Trump's classified mishandling/financial crimes? It's whataboutism at its finest, there is no moral high ground brochacho, it's literally just your feelings. Pathos arguments work well I guess when you don't have a logos or ethos argument. Also, mods need to move to move this thread to the squadron bar. This is stupid AF to have a political circlejerk on the main page that some random UPT student is going to come across as they're looking for info about flying in the Air Force.

There’s absolutely an argument. Marjorie Taylor Greene says states should “consider seceding from the union” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/marjorie-taylor-greene-states-consider-seceding-from-the-union-1234822567/ Why don’t we just agree both sides are terrible and divisive? Because your identity is tied into a made up reductionist construct of a political party?

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed. You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here. The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating? Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic. Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close. Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support): Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too. Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states? https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-bans-travel-roads-seeking-abortion-104256476 Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.