Honest question for the left

[Chap]

Trump's 75m to Biden's 68m does not seem to match your reality.

You meant Biden's 81 million to Trump's 74 million. Or, you were saying something about alternative realities?

This stuff from the Dark Side is not putting the US in a good place. No wonder these people wanted to hang the VP.

[Chap]

You meant Biden's 81 million to Trump's 74 million. Or, you were saying something about alternative realities?

This stuff from the Dark Side is not putting the US in a good place. No wonder these people wanted to hang the VP.

But I think II'll go with Trump's long-term loyalist Attorney General:

https://www.axios.com/Trump-barr-relati ... 59eb5.html

Attorney General Bill Barr stood behind a chair in the private dining room next to the Oval Office, looming over Donald Trump. The president sat at the head of the table. It was Dec. 1, nearly a month after the election, and Barr had some sharp advice to get off his chest. The president's theories about a stolen election, Barr told Trump, were "BS."

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and a few other aides in the room were shocked Barr had come out and said it — although they knew it was true. For good measure, the attorney general threw in a warning that the new legal team Trump was betting his future on was "clownish."

[honorentheos]

You meant Biden's 81 million to Trump's 74 million. Or, you were saying something about alternative realities?

Trump's 75m to Biden's 68m does not seem to match your reality.

Those are interesting numbers considering they only exist in your head. You are right, of course, that your numbers don't match the reality I apparently share with the majority of humanity. It's unfortunate you are afflicted with this psychosis but I hope you pull through someday and can rejoin us.

[canpakes]

You meant Biden's 81 million to Trump's 74 million. Or, you were saying something about alternative realities?

Trump's 75m to Biden's 68m does not seem to match your reality.

You don’t actually believe that Biden received a maximum total of 68 million votes anyway. And you don’t believe that Trump actually won, either. : D

Cool act, though.

[canpakes]

*i.e. the precise reversal of the 'landslide' electoral college win Trump claimed in 2016, plus a whacking great win in the popular vote, instead of Trump's sizeable 2016 defeat in the popular vote.

... maybe your "landslide" characterization is based upon your conclusion that a record breaking candidate won the most secure election?

It would seem to be KellyAnne Conway’s definition.



Props to Ms. Omar for trolling Ms. Conway. : )

[canpakes]

Translation: “The President will be watching OANN, napping, and sobbing uncontrollably into his Happy Meals all day, and until late in the evening.”

so the sudafed addiction does not have legs with you anymore?

I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t fit that into the schedule, if you believe that he needs to.

[Gadianton]

subs,

Do you plan to vote in the 2024 election?

[Moksha]

In order to better push its lies, Fox will be changing its format. It will move the news to 3 PM, so it can slot more right-wing opinion in a 7 PM. First up for audition will be Brian Kilmeade. Fox hopes to gain an even bigger share of the crazy demographic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... s-opinion/

[MeDotOrg]

Honest question for those of you that still work. You've fought very hard to see taxes raised. I'm sure many of you spent a lot of money contributing to Democrat campaigns. Why don't you go ahead and pay more taxes now before the law takes effect? Why do you need a law that forces you to pay more taxes? Wouldn't that be a better means to share your wealth that you've worked and saved to produce?

For those of you that no longer have to work for a living, why don't you go back to work and send your paychecks directly to Latin America, Africa or elsewhere?

I'm going to try to give straight answers to some pretty rhetorical questions.

Why do you need a law that forces you to pay more taxes? It's the difference between government and a charity, and it's an important distinction. Deconstruct the argument. Lose the word 'more'. If you ask Why do you need a law that forces you to pay taxes?, the answers are more clear. Charity, while admirable, is optional. Taxation at some level, regardless or more, less, or the same, is required. Taxes are a shared obligation. The government is not an alms house, begging for handouts.

For those of you that no longer have to work for a living, why don't you go back to work and send your paychecks directly to Latin America, Africa or elsewhere?

I have to break down my response here. I no longer have to work for a living. I have Social Security, the socialist prison for old people. Up until March 2020, I had a job as a Tour Guide. Like any job, it could be a royal pain in the ass some times, but I loved it.

With unemployment supplimenting Social Security, right now I have no additional need for a job. But let's say I wanted to behave as you suggest, and get a job. In this economy, almost any job I could get would be taking a job from someone who doesn't have Social Security. But I miss my work. Realistically, I don't see going back to work until late summer.

As far as money going to Latin America, Africa or elsewhere, The United States gives more foreign aid than any other country. But as a percentage of GDP, our contributions are far less generous.

The old honorific for the Spanish Monarch was Rex Catholicissimus, Most Catholic Majesty. Some people want the United States to hold the title of most Christian Nation. How shall I put this?

If Donald Trump were the man from Samaria who saw the stranger beaten by the side of the road, he would have walked right by.

[ajax18]

Taxation at some level, regardless or more, less, or the same, is required. Taxes are a shared obligation. The government is not an alms house, begging for handouts.

Is it a shared responsibility in the way tax increases are being sold to the voter? All I hear is that we just need to tax the rich, the 1%. Under Biden's tax plan, my taxes in theory should not go up since I don't clear over $400k/year. Of course most voters aren't informed enough to understand that these increased tax costs levied against the rich are passed on to consumers. And yet the 1% seems to get richer and richer in spite of this line that voters continue to buy over and over again.

Let's take someone like George Soros or the Hollywood celebrities investing millions into the Georgia Senate runoff elections. Wouldn't that money be better spent providing social welfare to the homeless in their home state of California, so they don't have to camp out on the sidewalks? How many members of the 1% live in Georgia versus California? Yes taxes are a shared responsibility but I thought the Democratic argument was to tax the rich, right? Is that really what the 1% who live in California are campaigning so hard for, to raise taxes on themselves? Or does it have more to do with cementing their power and control over the middle class?

In this economy, almost any job I could get would be taking a job from someone who doesn't have Social Security.

If good paying jobs are in such short supply, why are mass and illegal immigration so helpful to native born American workers? Come on MeDotOrg, nobody on the left really cares about the rust belt or displaced American workers. They don't need their votes to win elections anymore either so these people do not matter to the ruling political/corporate conglomerate. Plenty of posters on this board have said as much.