Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
worldnews	That's where you and i disagree. If millions of people didnt value the amazon service, then bezos wouldnt be a billionaire. If bezos didnt create it, then people wouldnt be able to give him money, which they feel is worth the value he provided. Additionally, poverty isnt a fixed amount, poverty is anyone who makes less than half of the median, so a HUGE portion of the world will always be in poverty, by definition.
worldnews	Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that kinda the point? Instead of accumulating the wealth themselves (the $1 into $0.02 issue), the rich would invest that money back into the economy through their businesses, thus having the money be counted as an expense instead of just profit, thus kicking in tax breaks on the wealth they were going to keep? &#x200B; The way I understood it was that in the past, the tax rate was so high because it was an incentive for the rich to reinvest, thus creating a stronger economy. The high tax rate was to target those who were accumulating money without doing much of anything with it.
worldnews	Again, you're explaining something different than what you said. You said that "the vast majority of millionaires are from wealth". Forbes top 400 I'm assuming is all billionaires, though at the very least rank 400 must have hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm not arguing that the richest of the rich didn't come from money, I am asking you to support your argument that the vast majority of millionaires are from wealth. The category 'millionaire' starts with 1 million dollars, not forbes rank 400
worldnews	At least for the corporate income tax, my understanding is that the corporate income tax is just an indirect tax on consumers. Instead of targeting the rich, it targets the poor and the middle class. If the government comes in and says to Microsoft that they are now going to pay an extra million in corporate income tax, the corporation is just going to raise the prices on their products to match the new tax. Since taxes generally are across the board, this doesn't create much of an incentive to not push the tax on the consumer as other businesses in a similar field will also have that same tax to pay. Therefore, all of the businesses see it as in their best interest to charge a higher rate on their products. &#x200B; If you want to tax the rich, you tax them directly. Taxing corporations generally only taxes the consumers, the very people you don't want being taxed too heavily as they are the ones keeping the economy afloat with the purchase of goods.
worldnews	Alright, take a look at [this chart.](http://www.capso.org/Emailer/EducationalMobilityTable.png) 46% of people in the top 20% of income have children who will stay in that top 20%, and the trend seems to only get more extreme as you get higher up on the income scale. Approximately the top 7% of people in the US are millionaires. It is difficult to find data specifically relating to millionaires as the cutoff (economists love quintiles) but it would be bizarre to me to assume that the trend stops at the 80% mark and that a majority of people in the top 7% wouldn't also have kids who end up in the top 7%. Edit: Because I grabbed the wrong chart, [here](https://static.neatorama.com/images/2012-06/generational-mobility.jpg) is one based on income. Surprise, it's almost exactly the same.
worldnews	It's not though, because for the average person taxing capital gains the same way is only going to make their retirement funds double taxed and really fuck them over. If you're making 50k after tax, and you're being responsible and putting away 10k every year after tax into investments for your retirement, why the fuck should you be punished with additional taxes on money you've already been taxed to earn? This will just discourage investment in general.
worldnews	> At least for the corporate income tax, my understanding is that the corporate income tax is just an indirect tax on consumers. Since we get screwed anyway, let's tax corporations just in case. It seems like the lower the corporate tax, the more people get screwed. So therefore let's keep lowering it? Why? Is there some instant flip where if that number goes to 0, people stop getting screwed and get benefits? How about this: corporations had their taxes lowered this year. Are they lowering prices? No. Are they increasing pay? No. Some are but are all? No. Most even? I doubt it. So as you continue to decrease their corporate rate - and we have already been doing that - what makes you think people will get any benefit? If we're not getting a benefit now, decreasing the rate more will somehow give us a benefit? > If the government comes in and says to Microsoft that they are now going to pay an extra million in corporate income tax, the corporation is just going to raise the prices on their products to match the new tax. But how about this: * the government does nothing * Microsoft raises prices anyway Now what? Or how about this: * the government decreases tax rate * Microsoft raises prices anyway You know that new iPhone? I hear it's still $1000 and Apple hasn't lowered their prices even though corporate taxes were lowered. Now what? > If you want to tax the rich, you tax them directly. That's where my capital gains tax idea comes into play. Also decrease the exemption on the estate tax.
worldnews	That's due to a misconception between minimum wage and living wage. Minimum wage is supposed to be paid to non-adult men (i.e. women and children) when the primary caregiver - which at the time was an adult male - had the salary. Minimum wage wasn't intended to be the primary source of income. It was meant to be a secondary source. Living wage is meant to be a primary source of income and that's not being paid by corporations who pay minimum wage. People who believe you - as an adult - can get by on minimum wage are wrong.
worldnews	That chart is refering to education, not wealth. At least at this point you're being honest about working on assumptions rather than facts. Reality may actually surprise you. Wealth is not some immutable thing that creates entire dynasties of entitled people with a silver spoon in their mouth, more often than not it dries up pretty quick. http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ >Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy. Obviously the system isn't perfect but people like yourself really don't seem to grasp how dynamic and shifting it truly is. Coupled with other studies showing a how many self-made millionaires there are (again, self-selecting but still indicative that it is a far more common occurence than you think) the system doesn't seem quite as staunch or bleak.
worldnews	the rich today aren't sitting on mounds of cash. Nearly everything that billionaires have is in investments. Inflation alone is reason enough to not store tons of cash in bank accounts. Also, you don't get to dodge taxes just because you reinvest money. You can avoid showing profits on a company by spending what would be profits in expanding the business, but what is the point of that if you are going to be taxed the next year just as much on a now bigger business with a higher risk? Growing a business bigger when you can't earn any more on it because taxes are so high is stupid and risky. You would be better off keeping the business small and only keeping minimal equipment and employees to hit the practical limit of personal profits, or you effectively commit tax fraud by buying all the fun stuff you would like personally but claim they are business expenses to avoid paying taxes. Oh, my business needs a yacht for yacht meetings. there goes what would have been 1 million in profits. Oh, and I need some corporate jet skis so people who are late can get out to the yacht meeting. I am also installing my business home theater for showing my vice presidents the quarterly sales reports on a 200" screen.
worldnews	Well, I appreciate the time you took to detail your experience. There is truth in that if something isn't available in your area then you cannot have it whether or not you can purchase it - the difference in access to technology and various forms of infrastructure between developing and developed countries is not up for debate, that is trivially true. But, the poster I responded to is just spreading sensationalist nonsense; to even get to his estimate of $2/day you have to include extrapolated pseudo-data from nations that we don't have valid statistics on and you also have to include the millions upon millions of people who still don't rely on modern economies to sustain themselves - you don't need a wage when you are able to feed and cloth yourself without currency, and that is a perfectly valid lifestyle. When you factor in the above as well as adjust the figure for purchasing power parity the average daily income is somewhere between $50-$75 a day, which all of sudden doesn't seem so crazy. [Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040)
worldnews	Do you have a link to that 70% number as opposed to a third party reporting on the fact? I'd like to see the data as they often have shaky ways of defining "not wealthy." Also, even if only 30% of rich people's kids wind up rich, that's way too high a number to be representative of a meritocracy. Assuming that we're talking about the 1%, that means that rich kids have a 50x higher likelihood of becoming rich than everyone else.
worldnews	Lets assume all those 164,7B is available in his bank account. He could buy 16 of the best players in the NHL and pay them 10M a year for 1000 years. And still have almost 5 billion friggin dollars left over. He could give every person in the planet $10 and still be one of the wealthiest people alive. He could give every person in USA $500 each and still have around 5 billion dollars left over.
worldnews	Okay silly. Anyone with a small business is aware of self employment tax, the split on FICA between the company and employee. More than a few employees and you are aware of self underwriting healthcare policies. Doesn’t take an expert, just some minor experience. If federal and state governments made companies with employees pitch into Medicare instead of BCBS, Aetna or some other unnecessary broker the numbers work out for reasonable coverage for the population. Want better than the provided coverage? Get a rider from a healthcare provider at that point. Yoy. Sheesh.
worldnews	This is the thing that bothers me about extreme wealth. What the hell are you going to do with all that money? I mean what's the point, there's literally no way you can spend it all unless you just give it all away. Even people with a fraction of that amount of money would never be able to spend it. It's just extremely selfish to accumulate so much wealth when there are so many out there who's lives could be improved if you were to share some of it.
worldnews	I believe that Bill Gates said that when he dies all (or majority) of his wealth and money is going charity. But anyway just giving people money won't get rid of issues. Investing the money and using the money wisely is far better than just donating it. You don't help countries through foreign aid, you help them by trading with them. East asia is a perfect example of this. Just "giving" money won't actually help that much. I do believe the current wealth inequality is an issue but it isn't all bad. We do need some ridiculously rich people to invest in things. The hard part is to get the rich people to invest in important things and stay away from harmful things. Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day, teach a man how to fish and he feeds himself for the rest of his life. However, we need to make sure that the billionaires actually teach (invest in good things) and not steal your fishing pole.
worldnews	In fairness, the fact that you cannot fathom what to do with such enormous amounts of money is a lot of the reason why you don't have such money. I don't mean that to downplay the role of luck, ruthlessness, or even meglomania. It's the same reason lottery winners and NFL millionaires all go bankrupt. The rich are rich because they fundamentally think of money differently than everyone else. Whatever they did to make the money and keep it by definition are things no one else saw. I don't mean they have different preferences that you could imagine sharing, hypothetically. I mean they are on a totally different wavelength when it comes to money. Logically this must be the case because in order to accumulate such money, you have to see opportunities and pitfalls for money that everyone else doesn't see at all. Otherwise there would be 1000's of Bezoses, which is to say there would be no Jeff Bezos. He exists because no one else on Earth shares his mental model for how to handle money. Before someone chimes in that he's not special, just especially exploitative, bear mind millions of people worldwide are much more willing than Bezos to exploit people.
worldnews	I absolutely agree, when I talk about sharing the wealth I'm not referring to just donating. I just can't understand why someone feels the need to hoard wealth like that. Sure keep a couple million/billion in the bank/as assets, but to have hundreds of billions to your name is just absurd. These astronomical numbers are crazy and it blows my mind when they just hoard it, I mean freaking spend it, even if they spend it all on themselves they're at least stimulating the various industries that produce the products/services they would spend it on. I'm by no means an expert in economics so I don't truly understand where all these people keep their money, but I mean come on, it's outrageous that you can attribute so much wealth to a single individual.
worldnews	I repeat, you do not understand history. 1. In 1955, the effective tax rate on the top 0.01% was 45%. 1. American taxes have become steadily more progressive since 1955. 1. Since 1955, the tax burden on the GDP has stayed within the same narrow band. 1. The 1986 tax reform did not significantly change the tax burden by income percentile. >So do something about the shelters? Eisenhower era tax code was designed to control investment behavior, not gouge the rich. The shelters were intentional. Later policy, like the Tax Reform Act of 1986, did not significantly perturb tax burden. They simultaneously lowered rates and removed shelters. It was designed to be revenue neutral with careful study. >Also, I'm referring to trickle down economics in the 80s, not the Kennedy tax cuts or whatever you're trying to vaguely reference. It's clear you don't understand taxes, because you're only considering marginal rates. But effective tax rates, taxes actually paid, are more important. >You have a faith in the US legislative system that even the legislators themselves don't have. Imagine thinking that legislation is simply the end result of a bunch of economists and policy wonks coming together to craft policies optimal for the median citizen and then telling someone else that they "don't understand contemporary policy." Straw man fallacy. The scenario you described isn't what I claimed. >For your information, the latest overhaul of the tax code was completely devoid of support by independent economists, and tax revenue immediately dropped after it went into effect. The Trump cuts? I think he intended a true cut, not a revenue neutral change. He said some bullshit about rebound effects, but it sounded like a smokescreen. Plenty of economists support lowering, or even eliminating, the corporate income tax. Furthermore, we won't know if it's revenue neutral until next year. >Let me quote you directly Beautiful. You really don't understand the difference between marginal rates and effective rates. I love how you think you had me cornered, only for it to turn out to be the same mathematical error you've been making thia whole time. Talk about rhetorical blue-balling. >Considering I have a degree in economics Argument by authority. >I'd say I "understand" the tax discussion as much as anyone else in these comments. You'd say that, and yet what you say says otherwise.
worldnews	Ohhh, sorry, I misread your comment - yes, I realize that capital gains are taxed, I thought you were proposing increasing that tax amount and I was objecting because that would punish me as a middle class saver for doing the right thing and planning for my retirement. That money is already taxed twice, once when you earn it originally, and then again when it makes gains. But I do like the idea of cutting income tax and then increasing tax on capital gains to compensate, to an extent. Would keep more money in the hands of people who spend, and would slow down the mindset among corporations of constant unrelenting growth, which is driven by the fact that they're all paid in stocks.
worldnews	In fact it is the exact opposite. A wealthy person who consumes vast amounts is depriving the world of those resources. Whereas someone who doesn't spend their money is being truly generous. Jeff Bezos is accumulating paper wealth, but that doesn't deprive anyone of anything. Even if a single person owned the entire Fortune 500, it really wouldn't matter at all as long as they lived the same lifestyle as the rest of us. It is unequal consumption that matters, not unequal wealth.
worldnews	Your metric claims that 1/3 of the world lives on $2 a day. If I was generous I could say that [1/7](https://homelessworldcup.org/homelessness-statistics/) of the world is lacking their basic necessities but the number is honestly closer to [1/70](https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/07/04/us-and-them-what-homelessness-looks-around-world). Either way, most people who are living on "$2/day" are not homeless nor starving though their relative lifestyle might seem primitive to a citizen from a developed nation. This is because markets adapt to their consumers - if the consumers have radically low incomes on average then luxury goods/services might not be offered but necessary goods/services will be something that the workers can arguably afford. It also depends on the style of government in the area - how many social services are offered? Do citizens receive free rations, housing, and healthcare? If so, then their income says a lot less about their lifestyle because they pretty much only need income for wants rather than needs. A decent example of this would be Cuba. The Nordic countries achieve similar effects through taxation despite their average income being far and beyond $2/day - but the point is that your income is a meaningless number without the context of the area you live in (cost of living, social subsidies, no access/reliance on markets, etc.). Just as an example here in the states, my salary could not hope to support a decent lifestyle for me in the bay area of san francisco. Here on the east coast I manage alright. If I moved to a less developed part of the US, like the Midwest or Appalachia, then my salary could afford myself a much more luxurious lifestyle as the costs of living there are very low in comparison.
worldnews	>What the hell are you going to do with all that money? Invest it back into the company and expand the business, which is exactly what Bezos has done. You have a child's grasp on economics if you think he's just sitting on a mountain of useless cash. To further expand on your infantile understanding on how money works: Even if Bezos literally was keeping a mountain of money locked away in a vault, he's actually still benefiting society with it. Because money is a representation of value. And the money Bezos has made represents the value he's put back into society by offering a service that lets families order products online that they couldn't otherwise get locally, and the other host of conveniences that Amazon provides.
worldnews	Yes, for all practical intents and purposes there is a finite amount. The irony in you saying we have 10 times more wealth than 100 years ago is especially good considering 10 is a very finite number. I'll address what I think you're thinking about - that the economy is predicted to be able to grow infinitely. Even leaving aside the debate over how true this really is, that still does not in any way mean that our current economy today (or at any singular point in time) is infinite. It's not. You can sum all the wealth in the American economy (not easy to do with any great accuracy), and it's a really big number, but it isn't infinity. TL;DR: infinite potential expansion over a period of time is not the same thing as an infinite quantity at any specific point in time.
worldnews	It is scam the BRI, It is the chinese communist party utopian dream. China know that their whole trade is stoping if US decide to block the sea so, their only other option is the land trade routes which lack the infrastructure. Also china had huge bubble with money printing and investing in infrastrucutre so very huge amount of chinese economy are constructuion companies so they want to take advantage of that and go build highways and railways to other countries.
worldnews	>Isn’t working more valuable to a society than “investing”? No, that's the conceit of communism. A guy who finds and raises capital for a promising robotics startup creating automated warehouse solutions that increase productivity 100x is far more valuable to society than the guy who shuffles boxes in the warehouse daily, doing the same every day working harder but not making any significant change. >We could just take the money from those rich people and invest it for them, You aren't as good as the rich people at investing money. That's one of the many reasons they are rich and you are not. It's not that hard to make money once you are at the point where you can afford education and healthcare, but most people still fail, apparently. The US has a net negative savings rate, so clearly investment >Labor is necessary, laborers are necessary, capital is necessary, capitalists are not. The people who invest capital most efficiently, provided they gain a cut of it, are by definition capitalists. If you don't give them a cut of it, then they have no incentive to invest it optimally. There is scope for reform here, maybe the US needs to create a Norway style professionally managed sovereign fund, but the cut and dry bullshit here is nauseating.
worldnews	The really scary thing is that there is probably a ton of stuff that we don't know about. If it's at the point where his secretary of defence is saying that Trump views things at a 6th grade level, Tillerson said he's a fucking moron, and Cohn was literally taking documents off of his desk so Trump would forget about them........... The part about Trumps lawyer prepping him for questioning from Mueller was epic as well.
worldnews	Holy cow, reading that article is simply insane. Former and current cabinet members literally and strategically treating the president like a 5th grader by hiding papers from him and struggling to explain political concepts to him in order to prevent grave consequences for the world. Straight up openly disparaging him and his cognitive skills to other staff, with tons of expletives. Kelly is completely right- it truly, sincerely, honestly is crazytown. How did the highest office come to this? Some of those quotes are mind boggling: >"If that was me, I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times." \- John Kelly to Gary Cohn >"This guy is mentally retarded," Trump said of Sessions. "He's this dumb southerner," Trump told Porter, mocking Sessions by feigning a southern accent. This quote seems almost certain to finally piss off southern Republicans, yet that probably means they will love him even more. And then there's: >Trump called President Barack Obama a "weak dick" for not acting in Syria, Woodward reports. ...Could this be a case of Freudian projection against his ultimate enemy?
worldnews	Nah. The guy in charge of the nuclear arsenal is the secretary of energy, which would be Rick Perry. This is the guy who questioned the need for a department of energy because he thought it's role was to oversee energy companies. Basically the idiot has mostly hired other idiots. I'm genuinely scared that these are the people in charge. My only hope is that those under them still know how things should be done.
worldnews	I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people think having lots of money automatically means you are intelligent. Trump was given a million dollars, pointed toward the Manhattan Real estate market, and told "have fun, don't screw it up!" Literally one of the easiest real estate markets in the world to make money in. And here's the thing, he actually screwed it up. He lost all his money. He was so bad at what he's supposed to be good at, he ran a casino into the ground. The only reason he got back on his feet was the loan-shark deal he made with Russian oligarchs. Any idiot could have taken Trump's resources and done what he did. Most of us don't because most of us don't have parents who've built their own real estate empire to give us a million-dollar seed loan to get ourselves started. And let's say he's actually good at real estate. Real estate agent and President of the United States are two very different things. The guy is just an idiot. Idiots get rich and into positions of power all the fucking time. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?
worldnews	1) I sincerely doubt that anyone, even those of us who hated the guy the entire time, knew just how corrupt and unabashedly stupid he was. We knew he was a tactless blowhard prick, we knew he was a brazen sexist and racist, but a lot of people were at least hoping his acumen as a businessman and figurehead would mean he wasn't entirely incompetent. It seems now that it's much worse than anyone thought, he is borderline retarded, is threatening to axe longstanding democratic institutions, and openly colluding with foreign agents. I don't think even his most ardent haters expected it to be this bad. 2) What is better, to have a raving lunatic making public statements, policy decisions, and bills totally unchecked by anyone around him, or to have some competent people around him who are suffering through it in order to try and mitigate the damage? Surely, within the entire executive branch, there are plenty of people who are genuinely there to do their duty properly for the good of the country, just as there are plenty of crony con men appointed by Team Trump to back up his lies and nonsense. It's important to differentiate between the two and acknowledge good behavior by those doing their jobs, because otherwise there won't be anyone to do it next time the idiot public votes in a demented sociopath. And there will be a next time.
worldnews	While I agree, I also believe that with Sanders as Dem candidate things would have turned out \way\ differently. Core difference being swaths of Dem-leaning voters who didn't want to vote for Clinton believing that enough other people would do and not having a vote for Clinton on their conscience. We all know what happened instead... Trump voters turning up at Election Day like a pack of wolves when they smell a herd of sheep.
worldnews	Truth is that no Commander In Chief has supreme authority to launch missiles any time they want. There are an array of people between him and that actually happening, and if any one of those people said "uh, no" then it wouldn't happen. In theory he can. In practice, no he can't. The military higher-ups of this world aren't going to jump into an atomic war on a whim or because of some irrational tweet. All that football does is arm them, it doesn't actually fire them. That'd be the job of others.
worldnews	The Republicans are to blame for nominating him, but the Democrats also deserve some of the blame for nominating literally the only candidate that could lose to Trump. I'm not saying Bernie had a guaranteed chance of winning, but anyone paying attention knew that the nominee should not have been Clinton. But, don't worry, the DNC hasn't learned any of their lessons, so we'll probably get another Third Way Centrist like Booker or Harris or Diet Kennedy ^tm or whatever Centrist the party decides to ram down our throats.
worldnews	The OP said any idiot could take a million dollar loan from their parents and "do what he did". To the contrary, take a look at lotto winners who win hundreds of millions of dollars and go broke. Or people who win large court settlements. Or people who inherit from their parents and don't do anything to build on it. You could give anyone on this thread 100 million and I highly doubt anyone would make their name one that is recognized world wide and then go on to become President of the United States. &#x200B; I very much dislike Trump, but it's to the point where you can make any sort of criticism you want about him, valid or otherwise, and people will eat it up. It's not really necessary when there is plenty of legitimate material available to analyze.
worldnews	No, Bernie just lost. The end. There was no evidence of tampering in the votes themselves (and Clinton won by a huge margin in the popular vote as well as the delegates) or of improper campaign conduct, and Sanders himself said he fairly lost and told his supporters that Clinton would be their best choice going forward. And Clinton still won the popular vote in the Presidential election too, too bad our electoral system heavily weights rural shitholes with 3 residents per square mile over the cities where 85% of the population lives
worldnews	Technically no. Congress only needs to approve acts of sustained war, which technically speaking the launch of a nuke wouldn't be, technically. This all assumes that we're not preemptively making nuclear strikes, but rather retaliating for others on ourselves. In that scenario you absolutely do not want to have to get Congress to convene and vote on retaliation, you want it to happen literally within minutes. If a nuke from NK landed in Hawaii, we'd nuke them back minutes later. That's the idea. But again, people often pretend the military is just automatons following orders, and it isn't. They're human beings full capable of reason. If he wanted to preemptively strike with nuclear weapons, Trump could feasibly convince them, but it'd be a con-job like no other. He couldn't do it alone, he'd have to have some serious intelligence backing in place already in on it. I mean he'd have to convince many, many people that we already were nuked for him to be able to launch on nothing but his say-so. Otherwise I believe you'd just see people refusing the order completely down the line. And if it got to that point, the next step is a military coup in America. Which if it got to that point, I'd welcome. Because they wouldn't tolerate Trump in office. The military is divided along political lines like any one else, but they do all respect the military above all else. And being ordered to nuke a nation because Trump is having a bad day would be more than enough evidence for those military higher-ups. They'd seize control. Best case scenario, it's temporary until Congress puts in another President. Worst case, they dissolve Congress entirely and we're stuck with a military dictatorship.
worldnews	The political system had become so bi partisan and rigged, that people were willing to take any risk on a political outsider just to shake things up. The inability for a 3rd party candidate to get traction, means a outsider from within was the only means of dissent. Anyone from the democratic party would have beaten Trump, except Hillary, she is just plain unlikable. She oozes smugness, and a "more of the same" air of elitism. They spurned Berny, they had the polling results that said Bernie beats trump and Hillary loses. Yet they chose to go with her because "it was her time" in her mind. The strangle hold the two parties have on the American people is disgusting. They have no incentive to change. People who vote for a color instead of a platform, deserve what they get. I'm sure most of the people who wanted to "shake things up" didn't expect this kind of idiocy, but when you roll the dice, sometimes you get snake eyes.
worldnews	>Dem-leaning voters who didn't want to vote for Clinton believing that enough other people would do and not having a vote for Clinton on their conscience. Yeah and how's Trump working out for them? Expecting an ideal candidate is an idiotic way to navigate politics, especially on the national level. Clinton won at the polls decisively and not because of any sort of rigging of from the DNC, some supporters of his were just too short-sighted to see that. She wasn't a perfect candidate but she was far better than the current shitshow.
worldnews	Your speculation of his net worth aside, I don't understand how some of you think this works. He's done so poorly that took a large amount of money and made it into an even larger amount of money. He was known worldwide for his business dealings. Then became President of the United States. &#x200B; The index fund thing, again, is speculation considering his net worth and any financial details about Trump are unknown. Further, it's pretty easy to pick some stocks in retrospect and say "what a dumbass, he could have just put all his money in Amazon and he would be the richest in the world". The S&P 500 didn't really take off until the 80s. In fact, before that, depending on when you invested, you could have put money in and not seen any growth over 2 decades. If it were that easy to look ahead, we would all be rich. That is really a moot point.
worldnews	Omarosa hasn't publicly released all of her tapes, nor has Michael Cohen, nor has anyone else that has worked in the administration. We don't know if they have anything that would qualify as evidence of a crime or an admission of guilt, but we also don't know that they don't (because that would be given to Mueller, not the public). I'm just wondering though, if Omarosa or Cohen has a tape where Trump outright admits to a conspiracy against the United States of America, would you even accept that, or would you just call it 'fake news' because you don't trust the source?
worldnews	The saddest reality, as a liberal, is that the downslide of America society over the last few decades falls squarely on the shoulders of Democrat leadership. The "adults in the room" failed to do their job, so the kids went outside and surprise surprise, the homeless dude in the van is letting them down. They have fought on the wrong hills, gotten outmaneuver in countless ways, and most importantly, cared more about the image they project than actually making political progress. Now, a large number of states are gerrymandered to hell in favor of the GOP, and the Supreme Court is stacked for the foreseeable future. Even if 60-65% of voters lean left, it's an uphill battle due to the multitude of failures by democrats over the past 2 decades.
worldnews	Polling showed Hillary also beat Trump. Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released. Polling was meaningless in the end. The democrats also went with a person who had been a member of the party for 20+ years. Instead of a independent who joined <1 year earlier simply to take advantage of the party for his presidential aspirations. It may have been “her time”, which is idiotic on those who voted purely for this, but she had also done significant amounts of work for the party is the past, vs Bernie who had never been a member.
worldnews	I mean, for the most part you're not wrong.... but.... Shouldn't most of the blame go to the people trying to destroy the country, and not the people who failed to stop them? Like Super Man failing to beat Lex Luthor and saying "The blame rests squarely on Superman for his incompetence while trying to stop Lex Luthor". Give Lex Luthor some credit here. Superman didn't build a deathray, he just failed to stop Lex from firing it. And the way things are now, Superman is still our best shot at stopping Lex. 3rd parties like The Flash, Wonder Woman, and Cyborg just aren't getting elected. So why are we making Superman out to be the be guy here?
worldnews	> Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released. Seriously. Bernie is a self-described socialist and he actually went to the USSR on his honeymoon and described it as "an incredible place". The phrase "writes itself" is overused, but it's applicable here. The attack ads would write themselves. I voted for the guy in the primary, but anyone who thinks Bernie was untouchable in the general is deluding themselves.
worldnews	You're not wrong, but we just don't have any precedent. No nation has ever been nuked ss a declaration. Japan was already at a war they declared when those bombs fell. Today, if any nation nuked America, it would be seen as grounds for immediate declaration. It is a sneak attack, and the implication is of course going to be war. So it is true that a strike isn't a declaration, it practically and in all likelihood will be seen as one the world over when that actually does happen.
worldnews	The US system isn't very representative. It promotes geographical advantages over the number of people in each region. It hands all the power to a simple majority. And each seat in government is awarded to the top vote-getter, leaving no room in government for small but significant alternative voices. The Republican party was able to pursue oligarchic rule by assembling just enough extremists, low-information voters, and greedy rich people along with enough underhanded election interference to win a simple majority in the US system. Everyone else gets shut out once they are in charge.
worldnews	> The Republicans are to blame for putting out one of the worst candidates in modern history. I mean if you nominate Trump, you gotta be fucking terrible right? I get it, time to move forward. But if we're going to see why this happened, the Republicans were the biggest part of it by far. I also straight up said that they own part of it, so I guess you just agreed with me in a way that implies that you don't which is weird. I guess what I'm trying to say is why is everything the Democrats do the fault of the Democrats and the Democrats alone, but everything the Republicans do the fault of the Democrats and the Democrats alone? What part of that seems right to you or anyone else? Which party is the party of personal responsibility again?
worldnews	> They pushed a vigorous, highly qualified Democrat, who was the wife of a popular President, and with awesome name recognition? With record levels of unpopularity, and decades of political baggage. Both the Republican and Democratic nominee that year had record levels of unpopular polling. You're inadvertently backing up my point - the DNC deserves its share of the blame for pushing the only candidate that could have lost to Trump
worldnews	And there it is. The DNC talking points from 2016. She did have the highest levels of approval ratings....and she also had the highest levels of disapproval ratings. She also had decades of political baggage and fuel for Republicans, so all you're doing is reinforcing my point: Clinton was the wrong candidate for 2016, and the DNC deserves its share of the blame for nominating and pushing for her as you just just admitted. They pushed the only candidate that could lose to Trump, so they need to be called out and blamed so that the party can actually move on. But you're also proving my other point: The party has not learned its lesson and is going to ram another Centrist Third Way Democrat down our throats in 2020 and find a way to lose that election, too.
worldnews	Record levels of unpopularity among Republicans. She was well liked among Democrats. > the DNC deserves its share of the blame for pushing the only candidate that could have lost to Trump Oh, bullshit. I maintain that Bernie would have been stomped in the general election and it's not like O'Malley, Webb, or freaking Chafee were going to beat Trump. Elizabeth Warren wasn't going to run (and she's very divisive). The Democrats are a little short of high profile candidates (which is a completely different problem that can be laid at the feet of the DNC, at least partially). Russ Feingold? He was a long shot in 2008 and I don't think his chances had improved.
worldnews	It wasn't just a million dollars, and it was more than just straight up currency. He inherited real estate and investments, not to mention being born into an already well-known name. If that moron inherited $250mil one day with no family name attached, he would've lost it, plain and simple. Hell, it's arguable the only reason he isn't begging on the streets right now is because he sold out his name.
worldnews	>Record levels of unpopularity among Republicans. She was well liked among Democrats. I call bullshit. She had record levels of unpopularity among Republicans and Independents. Just because she was well liked by Democrats does not mean she was well liked among Independents. And those same Independents are what cost her the election - just look at Michigan and Ohio. Elections aren't just about getting your base to vote, they're also about getting the Independents of this country to vote for you, and Clinton failed miserable at that. Again: My point is that Clinton should not have been the nominee, and that the DNC gets their share of the blame for pushing her from the beginning. I refuse to go into what-if-history territory because it doesn't matter, so I don't care about the rest of your comment beyond agreeing that the DNC is severely lacking in popular front-runners.
worldnews	I mean... there's also the argument that Superman was aware of the death ray, rolled his eyes at the death ray, said "don't be stupid, I'm Superman," and turned his attention elsewhere as the death ray was methodically aimed at large segments of the populace. Also it vents carcinogens on nearly half the rest, but Lex Luthor has convinced them (without subtlety, through mass media channels) that the exhaust is actually "vitamins."
worldnews	Holy crap this sounds huge. Woodward sounds familiar. Is he a respected journalist who will be taken seriously with these kinds of claims? I will be very interested to see how backs these claims up. Also, if he’s quoting John Kelly like this while Kelly is still chief of staff isn’t that kinda burning a source? Wouldn’t it be better etiquette as a journalist to wait until after the storm has blown over to put your sources on blast like this?
worldnews	The closet and casual racist is still HORRENDOUS because they turn a blind eye to the actions of the destructive ones. Put a cute spin on it like "not my business" or "we don't talk about that side of the family" but still invite those family members to the reunion cookout. It's enabling. Like if you had an alcoholic or abuser in your family and chastised him about it but never any more. It wouldn't stop him, and the inaction puts one on the side of the abuser over the abused.
worldnews	I would argue that Trump is undoing what amounts to 100 years of damage the administrative state has done because Congress no longer legislates. He's gutting the Federal rules and telling Congress that they have to pass laws and run on their records of being for and against things. It's undemocratic to rely on the bureaucracy to implement policy, because the people have no ability to hold them accountable, and even the government can't hold civil employees accountable. They merely get brought up the Capitol Hill and yelled at, but they're never fired. This is why the USSC is so partisan now, because the people have zero recourse against the administrative state other than to appeal to the courts. Who does someone vote against to ease farming regulations that are hurting Iowa farmers? No one... because Congress just passes legislation that says "the <insert political appointee title here> shall come up with regulations."
worldnews	I didn't say that. I said Democrats also have their issues, and I disagree with many of their ideals. Better than we currently have? Almost absolutely. As angelic as reddit seems to think? Hell no. The two party system is flawed all together. My team vs your team. We're all on the same fucking team you nitwits. And for being a reactionary little cunt trying to put words in my mouth, fuck you very much.
worldnews	Forget it you'll never undo this damage completely. You'll never gain back the trust of your allies. To some degree, probably, but not completely. Even if you get an all dem house, senate and president, what prevents the hillbillies from electing the next trump 4 years later? Their vote counts significantly more in terms of the presidential election, compared to say a professor from NY. So even if your country, in general, gets more educated and liberal over time your antiquated voting system and constitution will still fuck you over. Here's and interesting perspective from a history professor if you're interested: https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-fall-of-the-american-empire-will-come-by-2030-predicts-famed-historian
worldnews	And thats my point EVERYTHING is it MIGHT be bad IF it exists. Look at the Kavenaugh hearing, they are holding up the hearing because of fears of what "MIGHT" exist somewhere in some documents we cant see. Not in the 500,000 we've seen. Not in his entire history as a judge and all the on record opinions he's given. Not in all his articles, some of which they used in defence of Clinton. All because of this "thing" that MIGHT exist. Get off it and show some legitimate real contextual proof that I can see, hear, whatever. Until then, get off it.
worldnews	I think most people still fail to grasp that he is that stupid. It’s not play to get votes or something strategic, he is that guy. He inherited colossal amount of money and squandered it away, what saved him was that his insane narcissism and fake bragging to media gave him a rich guy myth that eventually companies would rights to put his name on their buildings and he got to play in a reality show. We are just lucky Trump is not as competent as he is mean and vindictive. Someone of his level of hatred and Obama’s level of diligence probably already would have overthrown the republic.
worldnews	It’s sometimes unbelievable. My aunt and uncle live down the road from me now. We go out to dinner twice a week. My wife and aunt are close, even with a 35 year age difference. We have the same interests, and live the same basic lifestyles. But if politics come up, I’m a bleeding heart liberal snowflake. Despite the fact that I’ve voted republican until Trump. Despite the fact that I obviously support most of the core GOP values. Their reaction becomes angry and vile. And then there’s my mother. My father was a pretty middle of the road republican for as long as anyone can remember. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative type. He passed over 15 years ago. And my mother has been with a fairly prominent retired political figure for the past 11 years. Nice guy, but super hard lined when it comes to party loyalty. And now, so is my mother. She’s in full support of the wall, and increased immigration security. Despite the fact that she’s now personally involved in almost a dozen charity funds setup up for legal aid to immigrants that are facing deportation. People she knows from within her community. They are quite literally the bulk of the immigrants she knows. So, she knows lots of immigrants, she thinks they’re great people and hard workers worthy of respect and citizenship, she’s actively fighting to keep them here. She is also still convinced that 99% of immigrants are criminals or freeloaders. Like she happened to luckily enough to stumble upon the only 10 immigrants that happen to be decent in this whole country. Oh, and she’s the daughter of two immigrants. It’s just a stubbornness. An unwillingness to accept what they know is true. And it sucks.
worldnews	Yeah, I don't think many Americans have a solid grasp on the amount of damage this administration has caused. Not just tangible damage, but the intangible things like trust and reputation. The world no longer trusts us - and we are no longer seen as a steadfast ally. It's the beginning of the end of America's position as a global leader. Between the rise of China and our insistence on being utterly retarded (literally - we vehemently hate academics), the 21st century is not being kind to America. Hell, the environmental rollbacks alone will take decades to even start to repair fully. And, we all know that the economic deregulation is not going to get repealed anytime soon - better get used to the corporatocracy. And neither are the tax cuts on the 1% - at the very least they'll never be pre-80s levels. We might see a repeal of the last tax plan, but I highly doubt it. Just enough Democrats will break ranks to make sure it never happens.
worldnews	I don't agree with your assessment of Clinton. Clinton played his part in passing several deregulation and tough on crime bills that have directly contributed to our country's modern problems. The Telecommunications Act alone directly gave rise to Conservative Talk Radio and empowered Fox News to become as blatantly partisan as they are today, and that's ignoring the amount of consolidation we've seen in the medias that it allowed. Oh no, Clinton was center right at best. He'd be a centrist Republican by today's standards, barring social stances.
worldnews	So you were so upset at the DNC that it forced the Republicans to nominate and vote for Trump? Again, Hillary sucks. The DNC fucked up by rigging their primaries (especially since you can look at the numbers and she still would've won by a landslide). The Republicans are still the most responsible by far. They could've, just for example, nominated someone qualified to do the job. Or even willing to try to do the job properly. Or maybe just someone at least capable of understanding the job. Get out of the way and let the adults do it for him? No?
worldnews	I mean obviously the Republicans are mostly responsible for this mess. Duh. The actors are the ones most responsible for their actions. Obviously. Also, "blame" doesn't seem like the right word to put on the Republicans because they actually wanted Trump elected, that was their goal. It's the Dems job to make sure that shit doesn't happen. I get it, the Republicans are the worst of the worst. But if we're gonna learn from this mistake we have to put some blame on the Dems for trotting out Hillary and fucking it up.
worldnews	> Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released. That doesnt really matter though, does it? Republican votes really dont matter - the thing that currently determines presidential elections is democrat turnout. The number of democrats who stay home vs the ones who go out and vote is what sways elections in modern America... and Hillary couldnt get the turnout.
worldnews	It's pretty simple. They see wealth and they want it. Which automatically means that whatever they want must be right and smart and just. It's the American Delusion. Money certainly is power and it's clear that if you have enough of it, you can do whatever the hell you want regardless of consequences or intelligence. That's what those people strive for. They want "fuck you" money not to look after themselves and their family but literally to "fuck you". Trump is the embodiment of that. The details don't matter.
worldnews	Sounds to me like we agree on pretty much all of it then. But blame is the right word. You can blame someone for wanting something stupid and achieving it. And technically when you've got an unqualified mess of a candidate who's history of corruption shows exactly what he'll do with the power that comes with the position it's everybodys job to make sure that shit doesn't happen. It's in the Oath they have to swear to get the job. I've enjoyed this little conversation though. No insults and bullshit, just 2 people with slightly different views on a subject talking. Thanks. Have a good one.
worldnews	I think it would take a lot for me to not support the good he is doing. I think bigger picture than some sex scandals or tax evasion. He's been a playboy his whole life and he doesn't do his own taxes, so for all I care its about whats best for the country. If he does something like genocide, killing camps, or something, hell yea I'll change that in a heartbeat, but over something like a pornstar payment, not really. Didn't care when Clinton got a BJ, didn't care when Obama got fined 350k for campaign finance violations, didn't care when Cheney shot his buddy. Unless its something that's negatively affecting the country as a whole, I could care less about some individual scandals. I DO care when the FBI, CIA, NSA are violating American's rights by using billion dollar computer centers in Utah to track them and their thoughts for monetary gain. I DO care when one political party uses that power on the opposing political party using politically funded research without checking it. I DO care when government employees are breaking the law in order to push their own political agendas. That is affecting the greater functioning of the country. That is more my concern.
worldnews	How about kummerspeck? The flab you gain by eating too much in response to an emotionally traumatic event. Or Weltschmerz, or the pain you feel when the world is so ludicrously not what you wish it were. Or a word to describe Trump, he has a Backpfeifengensicht, a face whose quality would be improved with a hard slap. Erklaerungsnot, when you find yourself in a position when you need a good explanation for something and you are incapable of doing so, something Trump must be facing every thirteen minutes. And finally, something to describe this Stupid Watergate as a whole, Kuddelmuddel, which is an instructed mess, or chaos.
worldnews	This is too fucking true. When demographics change or are perceived to change it Sparks up tribalism and idiocy regardless of group. Cave man brain thinks that it's going to lose social standing to other groups and is worried that they might secretly be sabertooth tigers, so it circles the wagons. Happened in California a while back and is happening now because of Obama. And Obama even tried to avoid race while campaigning. Didn't matter
worldnews	Blaming racists, while easier than admitting fault, is just a scapegoat. If the racists were that influential we wouldn't have had a black president twice. They lost when a black man was running twice, suggesting that they're the deciding factor when a black person wasn't even running seems silly. No, the reason we're in this mess is because the DNC saw fit to force one of the least popular politicians ever as their canidate. Hillary couldn't beat a dumpster fire in a popularity contest, that's why we're here. Own the mistakes and fix them.
worldnews	The good thing about the football is that the president can't actually order a nuclear strike with it. The football exists solely so that generals CAN'T order the use of nuclear weapons without the presidents or vice presidents approval. He can't just call the key master and say: Here are the codes, please carpet nuke Sweden. I fucking can't get this IKEA plywood desk together and the cartoons are boring! All they do is build things. The order still has to be planned out by a general or admiral depending on where the target is and when they want to strike. It's not a button that magically fires all nukes from subs, ships, planes and underground facilities in all directions. Yes, of cource Trump said he has a button to Kim on Twitter. No, obviously it doesn't exist.
worldnews	And, for full disclosure, here is kelly’s response to the alleged quote >In the White House statement released on Tuesday, Kelly re-upped an official comment he made in May, calling the accusations “total BS.” >”I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship,” he said in the statement. “I’m committed to the President, his agenda, and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.” Although I doubt it will be as popular as the quote in the book.
worldnews	There are ways. Namely, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. The red states have too much of a monopoly of 3 electoral votes for a tiny population. DC would get 2 senators, and Puerto Rico would get 2 senators and 4 representatives (this could be slightly different depending on how it would be ratified). Not to mention that it is bullshit that they aren't states. That would be able to get 4 more senators that would make it much much harder to obstruct in the senate, and the house can flip a lot faster than other branches.
worldnews	Kelly wouldn’t be the source, the sources will be flies on the wall whose presence no one paid attention to and later related what they heard. At least that was my interpretation of Woodward telling Trump that all of his sources are first-hand. He didn’t rely on hearsay, the sources actually heard it. But you can bet your ass Kelly himself didn’t tell Woodward he called his current boss an idiot.
worldnews	But isn't it better to have an evil moron than a competent evil person at the Helm? I mean obviously it's better to have someone good, but at least trump isn't going to be spearheading efforts to rip down democracies and install dictatorships like most other us presidents for the last 70 years. I prefer him to pence, because pence may actually help republicans get their god awful agenda through, not get in the way.
worldnews	This is what's mind boggling to us non Americans, why in FUVK does your shitheel of a president wield so much unchecked power that he can pull out of trade agreements, make immigration policy, pull aid from countries and impose random tariffs without the Congress voting and approving or denying it? And why in fuck can you not charge a sitting president for indictible offences? He's broken the law numerous times in the run up to the presidency. I understand he's got "immunity" to a degree once he's a sitting president, but that should only apply from the moment he is officially president. He shouldn't be immune to any charges that arise out of crimes committed before the presidency.
worldnews	You're confusing an act of war with a declaration of war. Only Congress can make a declaration of war, but the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, and can order them to do something that would clearly be an act of war even if Congress hasn't declared war. He's not supposed to, it might even be illegal, and in theory officers could disobey such an order (at their peril) if they thought it was unconstitutional, but he could do it.
worldnews	Net worth is not your personal wealth. Owning a building doesn't mean you can suddenly turn it into liquid capital. Quite the opposite actually, as those properties are usually in some level of debt and must keep operating to justify their cost. As for information, I recommend you start with the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money. Season 1 episode 6 is all about Donald Trump, the Trump family, and how he has run his business. It's quite enlightening as it brings in business associates, long time friends, and many others to speak about the man from people who've known him best.
worldnews	All else being equal, you're probably right. The problem is that a competent evil person will only do 'evil' things that have a benefit. They don't do evil things just because they're evil things. They're not going to stand up on a stage and tell blatant obvious lies and try to divide the nation against itself like Trump is doing, they'll stand up on a stage and tell subtle lies, mixed with the truth, so that no one really knows where the truth ends and the lies begin. They'll try to unite the nation under their own banner, because pushing through an agenda is always easiest with multilateral support. Competent evil is less likely to commit petty evils against people, but more likely to succeed at its end goals. Say what you want about the evils of previous Presidents, it was pretty rare for them to actively try to divide the nation against itself. The last time it got this bad was under Johnson and Nixon, and that was due to the Vietnam war more than any direct attempts to tear apart society.
worldnews	I do, and I wrote about it a while ago: >Trump is not a normal candidate. Trump is a Caudillo. Which is troubling because Trump is the first AMERICAN Caudillo. Other nations know how to handle these people, America doesn't. >Caudillos are men who hold vast power through: >A. Economic >B. Military >C. Politically >D. Socially >They gain power not from just real power, but IMAGINED power. >Lets take a very famous Caudillo, Maximino Avila Camacho. He used armed supporters to storm his own government offices for fun as minister, massive shows of wealth, and intimidation to give himself an air of power, specifically machismo power. >He took over the top spot from Plutarco Elias Calles, who after being humiliated by being arrested and expelled from the nation to live with his sister, lost all his power. He wasn't seen as the power house he was, because his IMAGE got tarnished. Calles had real power, but the most important asset to him was imagined power. >He was "El Jefe Maximo" (The Maximum Boss or The Supreme Leader) now reduced to a confused old man being dragged out of his house in the middle of the night to go live with his sister in America because his ass got kicked out of his own country and everyone was cheering for it. >Maximino was the same, he pushed the idea of a strong military man who still had it. >In reality, Maximino was nothing more than a washed up old man trying to cling to his powerful image he held in his youth as a soldier. Sure he had vast economic power and was friends with Axel Wenner Gren, the richest man on the world at that point, but his power didn't come from his businesses. It came from his military history, and he was just an obese old man with severe untreated diabetes and a metal bone in his leg. He was so frail he was advised against traveling at all, but he would never let that reality be known. >If some historians are to be believed, Maximino was murdered by a silent man named Miguel Alemán Valdés, a man who worked in espionage and his rival by poison, after Maximino threatened to kill Miguel. No boasting. No warnings. No threats. Miguel just brought death to what people saw as the most powerful man in front of all his friends. >In the official story, he died stuffing his fat face with food in front of all his friends after threatening his political enemies. >Neither of those scenarios are manly or dominant in the slightest and destroyed the image of Maximino. He was no longer some untouchable demigod. >Caudillos are men who typically prey upon the weak. The emasculated. The humiliated. The ones who took economic hits while others didn't. Both of history's greatest examples are old men who can't even fight a toddler but their image makes them out to be manly men when they are impotent. >And weak men especially gravitate towards a Caudillo who is almost guaranteed to be weak as well. They desperately form a shield wall around a Caudillo and only do so because of image, in today's term "memery". >The rule is the louder the caudillo, the weaker he is and more desperate are his even weaker supporters. >The only way to take down a Caudillo is through humiliation so blatant not even his supporters can deny it. Or if another Caudillo declares literal war on him and wins. Caudillos exist because their image makes them seem like demigods to people who look for what they think is power. You can attack their real power like businesses or voting record, but that isn't where their actual power lies. >So Trump gained his appeal because he is rich and seen as in charge. Weak people gravitated to what they see as a strong leader to help after feeling emasculated and powerless against the larger world. >The only way for Trump to lose support is if he is shown to be broke, and powerless. Meaning he wasn't some genius businessman, just a failed one. The MC Hammer of the business world. Which is why his tax records are guarded so well. >Caudillos cannot be destroyed by facts or blunders. They can only be destroyed by striking at the very heart of their power, the image they cultivate for themselves. Trump is using some very old social engineering going back centuries, and was previously only seen in Spanish Speaking countries. If Caudillos become common in America, it will cause way more damage than it ever caused to Latin America. And Caudillos have killed a LOT of futures and can easily destroy a nation for decades.
worldnews	Yes, we could all be rich if we were handed 100 million dollars from our father and put it into investments. And it's not speculation as there are people who've seen his raw tax returns. Speaking of which, did you ever consider why he has worked so hard to never release them? Among other reasons it's because he's not worth nearly as much as he claims. Which leads us to the below. As for his reputation, it's literally a sham. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but you really should watch the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money if you want to see what kind of a businessman he really is. Season 1 episode 6 is all about Donald Trump, the Trump family, and how he has run his business. It's quite enlightening as it brings in business associates, long time friends, and many others to speak about the man from people who've known him best.
worldnews	I guess time will tell if they're responsible people, or responsible for enabling him. I wonder how people will feel about men like Kelly and Mattis if it turns out in the end that they knew Trump had broken the law in an effort to win the election, but they stayed silent? Does them stopping him from launching nukes against N. Korea, or withdrawing from NATO, or the WTO or NAFTA balance out?
worldnews	Good lord. Look through the Forbes info. Each asset shows it's estimated value, % owned and debt to determine net worth towards Trump. Liquidation type value. Trump claims ~$10 bil which is obviously overinflated but $250 mil is ridiculous. And their estimates of value are much more conservatives than Trump's, which is fine, and still shows billions. Again, what secret knowledge do you possess? Or are you convinced Forbes and Bloomberg don't understand net worth as well as you?
worldnews	Idk. I didn't vote for Trump and threw my vote into a third party, but I got what I wanted for the most part. The executive branch is getting a lot of its extra powers looked at and pruned, Hillary didn't get to hand pick a judge who would disagree that the second amendment protects the right to own a pistol (the Heller ruling she ran on killing), Gorsuch is tougher on privacy than most of the Democrats, Kavanagh isn't the best but I like him, and the classist elitist pricks with half finished degrees and an idea of rural America out of bad horror films have very entertaining tantrums. If the Democrats cared about more than their upper "middle class" urban bastions and the poor who suffer for their standards of living they might not have lost to a mentally and ethically defunct Oompa Loompa.
worldnews	No, he is saying that after Obama got elected racist right wing people desperately wanted someone they like in office. Meanwhile the DNC shot itself in the foot and rigged their own elections against Bernie Sanders and they intentionally made sure Hillary won the nomination because Sanders was too anti-establishment and wanted to make legitimate good changes to the country that would piss off rich people and large corporations. So when that happened all the independents (which is the largest political "party" in the country) didn't like either candidate so people just didn't vote. Causing the republican party to walk away with a new president despite still losing the popular vote by millions.
worldnews	>If you think gay people are people, though, that rhetoric falls pretty flat. It's kinda hard to give Democrats much credit there considering they couldn't even legalize marriage equality in California and the supreme Court had to squint their eyes and read funny to get any justice done on that front. Democrats are far more interested in banning guns than income inequality, LBGT rights, and healthcare access. Shit, they couldn't even increase that on the backs of their rich base. Young men who weren't in college but earning 1.5x poverty line had to write that check. That's not worth losing the right to self defense and taking a weak stance on other liberties to a lot of people. My LGBT friends all voted Trump.
worldnews	What will happen is the next dem president will deficit spend to fix the problems and then get nailed for "raising the debt" and then "fiscally conservative" GOPs will be elected who then "monkey things up" .... and the cycle continues. It's the same in Canada... the "fiscally conservative" PC party in Ontario is lining us up for pointless deficit spending while the Libs (while faulted) were actually investing in the provinces future...
worldnews	The reform bill was notable, but Obamacare was only a half-measure, if it even got halfway to what they set out to do. It's a pretty good example of the Dems' overeagerness to compromise and how it often leads to losing the point of their policies in the first place. Of course, yeah, a lot of the reason for that was that they lost control of the House/Senate, but that's also rooted in party tactics that had been around long before Obama. The economy being on fire, and the GOP being positioned to essentially cancel out everything Obama could get through are products of decades of mismanagement and poor strategy. Obama could have done more if he possessed some of the killer instincts the Republican party have shown the past few years, but ultimately a lot of the issue was around before he even took office.
worldnews	Yup. It does pain me and dampens any sense of relief, knowing what lies ahead even with Trump out and a Democrat in. They'll just accuse Democrats of everything Republicans did in the recent past. Their constituents, with their selective memory, will parrot it. Fox news will do the same, but will know exactly what they're doing. Rinse and repeat. It's already exhausting and they have complete control of the government. I just wish the GOP could be completely dismantled.
worldnews	You can believe whatever you want. It's why the Democrats lose so many votes in rural areas or places with strong gun culture. Log Cabin Republicans are a things. http://www.logcabin.org/ But, I mean, why would a transwoman want the right to self defense? Or a gay dude? Your progressive magic makes their thoughts and feelings disappear before the might of your mostly white, cis, and straight party of "equality". Why would they be against paying more for healthcare so rich Californians can pretend to be a struggling middle class? The wife of the Man who passed fucking DOMA definitely deserves their vote based on her incredibly wishy washy support for maybe sorta being a little equal if it polls well.
worldnews	>Shouldn't most of the blame go to the people trying to destroy the country, and not the people who failed to stop them? In a moral sense? Sure. In a practical sense, no. The reality is the extremists aren't going to change their behavior. Lex Luthor is going to use that death ray no matter what.The only thing that changes whether or not that happens is whether Superman intervenes. The person with the choice, the swing voter, is the one who actually determines the outcome.
worldnews	Don't forget this part! >Trump faced widespread criticism after he initially said that “both sides” were to blame for the violence that broke out at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., last August. >He later condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis at the urging of his advisers, according to Woodward. >“That was the biggest f---ing mistake I’ve made,” Trump reportedly told aides almost immediately after the condemnation. >Trump also called it the “worst speech I’ve ever given,” according to Woodward's account.
worldnews	Oh, he’ll have a complete, toddler-esque meltdown of course. Assuming someone tells him what’s in the book. We know damn well he doesn’t read, so he isn’t going to find out for himself. As far as consequences, it’s hard to say. Trump is probably having difficult time finding people to sign on to his kamikaze mission at this point. So the only thing preventing him from firing everyone he wants to may be the fact he can’t get anyone with an IQ above room temperature to sign on to replace them. I believe those around him may have realized just how dire the circumstances are, and some, like Mattis and Kelly, may be bearing the insufferable tantrums out of a sense of duty to protect the country from whatever this maladjusted child might get up to without adults keeping a close watch over him.
worldnews	No, no, and no. I said nothing about Trump. I think he's compromised and should be ousted yesterday. But we weren't talking about Trump, and I would appreciate it if you could stay in the scope in which we are talking, and not attempt to shift it to suit your argument. With regards to your edit: A small percentage of Muslims being terrorists should be treated as terrorists. A small percentage of Trump supporters being traitors should be treated as traitors.
worldnews	Maybe... we need a different party. One that isn't pushing their sides agenda for the sake of ruining the other side. I don't actually think it would happen, but how awesome would it be if America actually payed attention during the election period? What if we all looked into the candidates OURSELVES instead of reading whatever CNN or Fox puts out to roast the opposing candidate? Maybe then we would actually vote in the BEST person for the job and not the one wearing their favortie teams color. "Bunch of democrips and rebloodicans, Red state versus a blue state, Which one you governin'?" -Kendrick Lamar
worldnews	>Trump called President Barack Obama a "weak dick" for not acting in Syria, Woodward reports My only comment on this would be that Obama discussed chemical weapons as a red line, a term he used more than once. When the line was crossed, nothing was done. &#x200B; The geopolitical situation is far too complex and multifaceted for me to pretend to have a solution, but the issuing of ultimatums and then lack of action does imply weakness, that a nation isn't worth their word. The solution there being not issuing red lines but pressuring the UN to act, offering resources to act if necessary.
worldnews	This is the angle the Trump team/Fox News will take. They'll say he is embellishing things people who were mad at him said - it's all part of the witch hunt. The sad thing is, people will believe it. That this is yet another "setup to make Trump look bad." I don't know how many setups and exposures it will take, but after talking to my dad, it might be infinite.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.