Trump says no legislation if investigation continues

[_moksha]

LIBERAL Conspiracy trying to displace Trump on Mount Olympus

[_Kevin Graham]

No, Kevin. I did not wait until after the deletion to claim what you said violated the family member rule. My opinion was that what you said violated at a minimum the spirit of the rule. That’s not lying. That’s having a different opinion than Kevin Graham.

I don't give a damn when you said it, the fact is you're lying. I never once "demeaned" Ajax's daughter. And you repeated this lie after it was pointed out that I didn't break a rule, after my comments were removed so newcomers couldn't see for themselves.

Ajax said his daughter was the prettiest person he's ever met in his life. I said ajax's daughter was pretty. That's demeaning her?

Ajax said Americans should work until they die. Ajax also says he wants his daughter to not have to work because she is too pretty to work and should be able to live off of whatever ajax leaves her in his will. His hope is that Trump gives him a big enough tax cut for a long enough time so the "prettiest girl" ajax has ever met doesn't have to work.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of ajax's claims and pointing out the double standard is not "demeaning his daughter" and you're an idiot for doubling down on this. My post was removed for supposedly saying something that was "harvested" elsewhere. That's total BS. I've said nothing that ajax hasn't revealed on this forum recently and I never once "demeaned" his daughter. But then you claimed I broke another rule about demeaning family members, and that's on even weaker ground since conceding someone is pretty isn't demeaning. I suppose you could say I was mocking ajax's West Virginian redneck background by saying she was "purty," but that would be mocking ajax, not his daughter.

[_Jersey Girl]

Kev are these the comments you were responding to or where there others I overlooked?

This reminds me of how grateful I am God gave me experience of having such an amazing loving daughter. She ended up being the smartest and prettiest girl i ever met. I didn't know women were capable of this kind of love until she came into my life.

[_Res Ipsa]

No, Kevin. I did not wait until after the deletion to claim what you said violated the family member rule. My opinion was that what you said violated at a minimum the spirit of the rule. That’s not lying. That’s having a different opinion than Kevin Graham.

I don't give a damn when you said it, the fact is you're lying.

That's funny. Aren't you the same Kevin Graham who said this:

Oh so now you're going to flat out lie knowing perfectly well the evidence has been removed so no one can verify?

You seemed to care very much when I said it -- so much so that you accused me of claiming your post violated the family member rule only after your words have been deleted. Again, you are wrong about that. I reported your post as violating that rule before your words were deleted. So, I lodged my complaint before your words were deleted, not after as you keep insisting.

I never once "demeaned" Ajax's daughter. And you repeated this lie after it was pointed out that I didn't break a rule, after my comments were removed so newcomers couldn't see for themselves.

Wow. A couple of sentences after claiming you don't care when I made my complaint, you again accuse me of waiting until after the deletion to make it. Would it be too much to ask you to make up your mind?

Ajax said his daughter was the prettiest person he's ever met in his life. I said ajax's daughter was pretty. That's demeaning her?

Oh, Kevin. You and I both know that is an extremely misleading description of what you said. Here is what Ajax said about his daughter:

My daughter's present and future has been great under Trump. My S Corp has allowed me to put money away in trusts that will be hers once I pass on. My goal is to work right up until that moment because I don't believe in retirement. The concept is a flaw in our culture, a culture of lazy entitled people who think the community owes them a 30 year long free retirement. It gives me comfort knowing she and her little brother will get that money rather than it being forfeited to the state as the left would have. It's true that I put my own children first. If people want to judge that as part of my racism, let them say what they want, she will still get everything I can save from my earnings because my goal is to make her life better than mine was and I've always believed that wealth and standard of living are built through generations of family work and sacrifice, not illegally immigrating to mooch off what has already been built in another country.

This reminds me of how grateful I am God gave me experience of having such an amazing loving daughter. She ended up being the smartest and prettiest girl i ever met. I didn't know women were capable of this kind of love until she came into my life.

Ajax's statement that his daughter is pretty has nothing whatsoever to do with what you claim is his hypocrisy. But you chose to throw in the "pretty" in a manner that was, in my opinion, mocking and demeaning. And that wasn't the only word you used to describer her: In that same manner, you also referred to her as "privileged."

Ajax said Americans should work until they die. Ajax also says he wants his daughter to not have to work because she is too pretty to work and should be able to live off of whatever ajax leaves her in his will. His hope is that Trump gives him a big enough tax cut for a long enough time so the "prettiest girl" ajax has ever met doesn't have to work.[/.quote]

And you've gone and done it again -- completely misrepresented what Ajax said. For your convenience, I copied what he said right upthread from you. So, please quote for me exactly where Ajax says he "wants his daughter to not have to work" or that she is "too pretty to work" or that she "should be able to live off of whatever ajax leaves her in his will." I'll save you the trouble, Kevin. You can't quote any of those things because Ajax never said any of those things. For someone with a penchant for accusing others of lying about his words, you sure live in one damn big glass house.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of ajax's claims and pointing out the double standard is not "demeaning his daughter" and you're an idiot for doubling down on this. My post was removed for supposedly saying something that was "harvested" elsewhere. That's total ____. I've said nothing that ajax hasn't revealed on this forum recently and I never once "demeaned" his daughter. But then you claimed I broke another rule about demeaning family members, and that's on even weaker ground since conceding someone is pretty isn't demeaning. I suppose you could say I was mocking ajax's West Virginian redneck background by saying she was "purty," but that would be mocking ajax, not his daughter.

I have an idea, let's ask Ajax whether he understood your post as being complimentary toward his daughter. I mean, his response kind of indicates he didn't, but let's ask him just to make sure.

And, again, there is no hypocrisy, Kevin. You made up something that Ajax never said and then accused him of hypocrisy based on what you made up. You know that you are misleadingly describing your comment, because you weren't "complimenting" her. That's just weaseling. If that's all you would have done, I wouldn't have reported your post in the first place.

And, just for clarification: are you saying that I can say something snarky or mocking or demeaning about your wife or kids as long as I do it for the purpose of attacking you? Really?

Shades has asked us to follow both the letter and spirit of the rules. The spirit of the family member rule is pretty damn easy to follow: when you want to get pissy with another poster, leave their family members the hell out of it.

[_EAllusion]

Res Ipsa -

His post reads as demeaning if you don't know the context. Ajax has a long-standing theme on this message board of expressing utter contempt for people who don't work for a living until the day they die regardless of wages or circumstances. In a case of fairly brazen hypocrisy, he makes an exception for a family member and cites her being pretty as a basis for that exception. The same guy who things arthritic 90 year olds should be compelled to work two jobs of manual labor if that's what they need to afford medicine also thinks his daughter is too pretty to work. For those playing at home, for Ajax age, disability, and opportunity are not valid reasons not to work. He's gone as far as suggesting government enforced labor camps might be a way to solve the problem of people not working. Being a family member and considered beautiful by Ajax? Why, that's a perfectly valid reason not to work.

Kevin pointed this out in a sneering way, but it really wasn't an attack on his family, nor was it digging up personal information from outside the board. It was just in attack on Ajax's hypocrisy.

Really, Ajax is probably just an intensely tribal person. That's probably why he's so susceptible to extremist racism and it's also probably why his principles bend in the case of family.

[_Res Ipsa]

Eallusion, to be clear, I’ve not claimed that the post violated the rule against posting private information. I reported the post under the family member rule. I don’t understand the relevance of Ajax’s position on work to whether Kevin’s post violated rules. Does the fact that Ajax’s position on work is repugnant mean the rules are different when we talk to him here?

And where does Ajax say that his daughter should not work? Can you quote that part for me? If you can’t, why did you spend so much effort using a mischaracterization of what he said to explain to me what a bad person he is.

Ajax May be Satan incarnate, but that shouldn’t mean the rules should apply differently to him.

Look, I get that opinions can and do vary on whether a post violates rules. If you’re telling me in the red that it didn’t, I’m perfectly fine with that. I’ll still have my own opinion, but I won’t challenge you on it. You get paid the big bucks to make these calls, and I respect that.

But I will also admit that I was taken aback by a response to my report of Kevin’s post that consisted mostly of telling me what a bad person Ajax is.

[_honorentheos]

Hey Ajax,

Still don't want this to get buried.

Like it or not, that tax avoidance contributes to your tax obligation being what it is.

I think you have a point on this. Yet I think you'd also agree given that this trend hasn't stopped under Republican or Democratic administrations. Nobody has shown us they can make the uberich pay their taxes. They always seem to find a way out of it.

This is one of those issues that transcends politics or even national sovereignty. On the one hand, we live in a world where capital can move fairly easily across borders between countries, continents, and political regimes. On the other hand, the laws that control information around money/ownership are decidedly constrained by borders. This means a person or group who wishes to shelter money from the taxman has a market place of options from which to choose in regards to where they transfer that money and convert it into, say, a trust or property. But the government wishing to crack down on tax avoidance doesn't have access to the same freedom of movement or information, while doing so will signal to those operating in these capital markets they are no longer friendly places to the money movement game so the wealth goes elsewhere.

It doesn't necessarily matter if a Democrat or Republican is in office and tries to change things. The market is open to those with money seeking to offshore it and enjoy it's benefits outside of the regular, traceable global economy who can just find other places to do so. The mechanisms for this go back to the creation of the eurobond https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurobond.asp and the globalization of capital it caused.

This makes for a weird issue in that the forces that are moving wealth away from the lower strata of society and accumulating it at the highest strata do not appear to be controllable by changing party control in any particular nation. We aren't going to change that much even if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders becomes President and has a green revolution in the House and Senate. We may make new laws and really shake things up trying to get back to the high tax rates of the upper brackets that existed in 50's and 60's. But we can't recreate the same non-globalized capital conditions that constrained capital flight. One thing that has made the US a favorable place to put capital, even if taxed, is that it's relatively secure. Bad players in the US will be more likely found and punished than bad players in Brazil. But that isn't as much of a deterrent in the 21st C. There are options and when nations compete for dollars, the taxed citizens get to make up the difference. The super wealthy will find favorable nations to move their capital to where they can continue to enjoy it while everyone else loses. As I said before, its a form of the tragedy of the commons.

[_honorentheos]

I've always believed that wealth and standard of living are built through generations of family work and sacrifice,

There's been a lot said about other aspects of your post, ajax, and some of it has been overly harsh, in my opinion. I don't think there is anything innately wrong in your desire to provide for the future of your daughter and son, and the emotions you expressed in your post are familiar to me as well. I don't think it does the discussion any service to try and turn that into a point of contention.

Guess that point had to be proved.

[_EAllusion]

But I will also admit that I was taken aback by a response to my report of Kevin’s post that consisted mostly of telling me what a bad person Ajax is.

Just so this is clear, I did not write a response to your report. I fully agree rules are to be applied equally.

I found Kevin’s post to be sneering, but not in a way that is typically moderated to the point of censored. It definitely didn’t violate the rule concerning sharing personal information. And I personally don’t interpret it as attacking a family member of his. It’s merely pointing out something Ajax has argued as a basis to condemn him that happens to involve his family. I am hard pressed to see where his daughter is attacked in the comment. The ire is aimed at purported hypocrisy. If you thought Kevin was being sarcastic about the “pretty” comment, I’d get it, but context suggests otherwise to me.

[_EAllusion]

My opinion of Ajax’s comments is that sometimes his comments show anarcho-capitalist thinking and other times show an affinity for North Korean style fascism. These are in direct tension with one another and coexist because his beliefs are pre-ideological instincts operating on general right wing media consumption.

Because he’s super loyal to whatever he perceives as his tribe, the tension in this case results in a hypocritical exemption for family towards otherwise profoundly draconian ideas about people’s obligation to work.