What's new
By:

Trump Dictatorship and All Things Politics

Al-O-Meter said:
Who are you referring to? And I don’t mean ‘point to a vaguely defined group of people’. Show me specific comments from specific people directed at you that make the claims you cite and I’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to denounce it.

There are those who think Kamala Harris was an extremist. In 2019 she made some comments that came across that way and those old comments haunted her in this past election, but I know I’ve never said Kamala was extremist. I think she’s not a good candidate for a range of reasons but we can disagree on that.

As for LogGrad, I don’t see him as a “flaming liberal”, whatever that means. I see LogGrad as someone who is in physical pain and consuming Percocet at a rate that has put him on the radar of programs created to head off abuse of opioids. That pain, which I don’t doubt is real, has reduced his personal tolerance for being challenged. As LogGrad’s condition persists, his world is contracting and drifting toward nihilism.




On better days, it is only Trump, Musk, and those he sees as “the Oligarchs” that he wants to see dead.



On worse days, he wants to see everyone dead, and I do mean everyone.


I don't see that as drifting leftward, but that is just me.

blogger-image--1747758577.jpg
Click to expand...
Probably me. I say they are left wing extremists when they have views of speech regulation, court expansion, mandatory gun buybacks, electoral college removal, filibuster removal and other things that majority of people are for or close to center idea. Obama care was an extremist idea, yet now it’s apart of the norm.

Again it’s okay to have extreme views, just acknowledge it. I want a federal college where it’s subsidized/market based so we can fix the student debt issue. It’s an extreme view.
 
Bucknutz said:
What would you consider an extreme view? I see it as something that doesn’t swing too far away from the center.

For example, why would you want to expand the Supreme Court? Most people on the left say the Supreme Court is compromised by corruption on the right. Yet there is nothing to prove they did anything wrong or maybe even falsely accused. But that’s the grounds to expand? No, you and I both know it’s ideologically leans right and they don’t like it because of its rulings. You don’t hear these same posters say let’s expand the courts now…why, Trump gets to expand it with his picks and the Senate would push them right through.

It’s extreme because they are only wanting to do it to benefit their party and not the good of the country. It’s a selfish idea.

You take rounding up the illegals here and deporting them. I think that it is an extremist view. A more central view to this is deport the people causing issues. These people being a lot of value to country and it makes no sense deporting people who have a life here now. The right thinks it’s going to help their party and it’s a selfish idea.

Again, nothing wrong with wanting these ideas or have these views; they might be needed to make America take the next forward step.
Click to expand...
I think your first sentence is miswritten, you say that an extremist view "doesn't swing too far away from center." I'm sure you mean the opposite. If not, then we need to have a SERIOUS discussion about definitions.

On the Supreme Court issue, specifically, I actually would still be in favor of reworking the court entirely. Expanding it, maybe implementing a round robin of who hears cases. There have been plenty of suggestions for how to make changes. How much can be done without a constitutional amendment is up for debate, but it's absolutely ludicrous that someone can be appointed and spend 50+ years, well into senility, The longest serving justice was there for 36 years, from 1939 until 1975. The problem as I see it is not if they're left or right personally, but if they allow political/personal opinions to outweigh legal considerations. (RBG was a prodigious legal mind, but I think she is an example of this.) The right constantly complains about activist judges, and yet they pack the courts absolutely full of them.

As far as immigration, I think we need to take a bigger look here. The US, and capitalism in general, is absolutely enamored with GROWTH above all else. It's not enough to make $1,000,000,000 every year, you need to make MORE next year, and the year after that. It's not enough to sell more widgets than everyone, you have to sell more every year. Similarly, the US has to keep growing. There are only 2 ways to do that - internally or externally. If we don't have immigration, the only way to do it is internally, that is to say, making people pump out as many kids as possible. That's why the same people who are against immigration (and, let's be real here, they're not just against illegal immigration) are also against abortion and contraception.

But this really isn't addressing why you think that people can't be in favor of (or admit being in favor of) extremist views. Sometimes we need to take extreme measures.
 
Bucknutz said:
Probably me. I say they are left wing extremists when they have views of speech regulation, court expansion, mandatory gun buybacks, electoral college removal, filibuster removal ...
Click to expand...
You make a fair point, but I see things differently. Even though it is currently people prominent on the political left that want those things, I don’t see any of those as left wing ideas. That entire list is about power and control.
  • Make criticism of your ideas illegal.
  • Dilute the court with people guaranteed to uphold your ideas so the court is removed as an obstacle.
  • Take tools of resistance away from those being ruled
  • Remove structures of the republic that have stood in the way of gaining power
  • Weaken the opposition party in the legislative branch.
That is a wish list for subjugation. Abolishing the filibuster was never about some lefty ideal and it should shock no one the political left spun on a dime moments after Trump was elected to now oppose removing the filibuster. It was always about power and control.

Sadly, I also don’t see those ideas as extreme. Throughout history and all over the world, these yearnings for tools to impose governmental dominance are depressingly common.

Bucknutz said:
I want a federal college where it’s subsidized/market based so we can fix the student debt issue. It’s an extreme view.
Click to expand...
If you want to fix the student debt issue, the solution is simple. Make student debt disposable in bankruptcy, and ban co-signers on student loans, but that may be a conversation for a different time.
 
Red said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump ‘to expel all transgender people from military’

Reported move would mean loss of 15,000 personnel at a time when the US is struggling to recruit, warn charities
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Cue the apologists.

I don't think this will stand. I cannot see anything like this happening given how many states have laws regarding discrimination, not to mention the federal laws. Of course, gender identity is technically not a protected class at the federal level but I cannot see a sweeping change like this happening without some solid opposition from congress and the senate, not to mention the states pushing back. This one is likely not to happen, imo.

If it does happen, it will likely be a harbinger of further discriminatory acts to come.
 
Bucknutz said:
Do you think replacing the income tax with tariffs an extreme view or do you agree with it?
Click to expand...

Out of all of those "honest" questions, this one is the most hilarious. Tariffs are a tax on imports. Do you know the total value of US imports annually? 3 Trillion. Do you know the US total annual tax revenue just from individual and corporate taxes? 2.6T. So you'd need something like 80% tariffs to break even, which would make basically all imports economically unfeasible, pushing annual imports close to 0. Other countries would also retaliate by imposing their own tariffs on US exports. So the end results would be the total defunding of the US government, including Trumpers beloved police and defense departments, as well as the collapse of the US economy.

So not extreme, and I agree. I've always thought living in the Mad Max universe would be interesting.
 
Fosto said:
Out of all of those "honest" questions, this one is the most hilarious. Tariffs are a tax on imports. Do you know the total value of US imports annually? 3 Trillion. Do you know the US total annual tax revenue just from individual and corporate taxes? 2.6T. So you'd need something like 80% tariffs to break even, which would make basically all imports economically unfeasible, pushing annual imports close to 0. Other countries would also retaliate by imposing their own tariffs on US exports. So the end results would be the total defunding of the US government, including Trumpers beloved police and defense departments, as well as the collapse of the US economy.

So not extreme, and I agree. I've always thought living in the Mad Max universe would be interesting.
Click to expand...
It is also not going to happen as made clear by Scott Bessant, Trump's nomination to be Treasury Secretary when he wrote "tariff gun will always be loaded and on the table but rarely discharged."


It is a negotiation point that will be used in exactly the same way Trump used it in his first term.
 
Fosto said:
Out of all of those "honest" questions, this one is the most hilarious. Tariffs are a tax on imports. Do you know the total value of US imports annually? 3 Trillion. Do you know the US total annual tax revenue just from individual and corporate taxes? 2.6T. So you'd need something like 80% tariffs to break even, which would make basically all imports economically unfeasible, pushing annual imports close to 0. Other countries would also retaliate by imposing their own tariffs on US exports. So the end results would be the total defunding of the US government, including Trumpers beloved police and defense departments, as well as the collapse of the US economy.

So not extreme, and I agree. I've always thought living in the Mad Max universe would be interesting.
Click to expand...
If we don't have over inflated government that is reckless with tax dollars we don't need income tax. Way too much waste, fraud, and abuse in government!
The pentagon has never passed an audit and they weren't even subject to audits until 2018! They cant even account for the money we know they are given and we all know about "black budgets".


View: https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1857394368094597519



View: https://x.com/DaFiretruck/status/1857867433220157628


View: https://x.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1857864210484744702
 
Last edited:
Mongoose said:
If we don't have over inflated government that is reckless with tax dollars we don't need income tax. Way too much waste, fraud, and abuse in government!
The pentagon has never passed an audit and they weren't even subject to audits until 2018! They cant even account for the money we know they are given and we all know about "black budgets".


View: https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1857394368094597519



View: https://x.com/DaFiretruck/status/1857867433220157628


View: https://x.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1857864210484744702
Click to expand...


Prices would skyrocket, and those with lower income would be the most affected. Right now, the rich pay the vast majority of tax dollars. Tariffs at any level to fund a meaningful government would increase the price of goods astronomically (someone gotta pay for those import taxes), and the rich would be the least affected since the rest of us spend a far larger percent of our income on necessities. Any kind of consumption tax is basically a tax relief for the rich, and a burden for the rest.

But the consequences would be far more reaching than just runaway inflation and a defunded government. The US's ability to export goods would be badly damaged as well. There simply isn't any examples of a nation going for such an extreme economic policy, although the communists come closest (and they don't have good economies). It doesn't matter what the US did in 1850 or whatever. That's a completely different world.

You should also stop conflating completely separate issues to support the argument. The Pentagon needing to be audited has nothing to do with tariffs vs income taxes.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
It is also not going to happen as made clear by Scott Bessant, Trump's nomination to be Treasury Secretary when he wrote "tariff gun will always be loaded and on the table but rarely discharged."


It is a negotiation point that will be used in exactly the same way Trump used it in his first term.
Click to expand...
Trump is having a disagreement with Trump again...


He promises tariffs on day 1 against Canada and Mexico (and China) on day 1, which I think according to Trump is going to be national "Dictator for a Day" day.

I don't know any of this, but I would imagine NAFTA V2.0, which is a "deal" Trump did in term 1, would have stipulations about tariffs against the fellow signers of the treaty.
 
I truly hope we experience these high tariffs. I want Trump supporters to feel what they voted for! You wanted this crap! Enjoy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top