At that same stage show, Trump's second admission was about the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate being repealed in the bill. Apparently eager to argue that he cut taxes and also had slain Obamacare in one fell swoop (after Congress came up short on Obamacare this year), he argued that repealing the individual mandate was basically the same as repealing Obamacare.
But, he said, he told Republicans not to talk about that. Trump said he told allies to "be quiet with the fake news media because I don't want them talking too much about it." and “Now that it's approved, I can say that.”
Passed by the Senate in the middle of the night a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and a 4.5 trillion dollar tax increase on the poor and middle class. That he won't sign this year because it would completely wipe out Republicans during the 2018 midterms by triggering automatic cuts to Medicare. But it's a middle class miracle!
Trumps proud of this tax scam right? Why hasn't he signed it yet?
If he signs it now, Trump would trigger $25 billion in automatic Medicare cuts.
That's why he's not signing the bill until January. That way, due to Congressional 'Paygo' rules the cuts won't go into effect immediately but will occur in 2019. That way Trump thinks he and Republicans won't suffer from this in the 2018 midterms. He's hoping to hoodwink people again.
Maybe Trump's just waiting for Friday so he can do a double whammy. "I'M SIGNING THIS GREAT TAX BILL THAT WILL BE JUST GREAT FOR EVERYBODY. DID I MENTION THAT IT'S GREAT? mueller you're fired."
This is probably right. He figures people might not riot on Christmas. He's evilly crafty. Not exactly qualities one wants in a President of the United States.
Last Christmas (try not to sing), Trudeau sparked a controversy by vacationing in Nassau Bahamas. He, like the year prior, attempted to keep where he was vacationing secret, with a legitimate excuse of "he and his family would like privacy." I get it, he's famous and well loved.
But there was more to the story as journalist, the unfake kind, dug deeper. Trudeau actually was on vacation on a private island owned by the Aga Khan. The optics alone, this Prime Minister - champion of middle class, having a vacation where no middle class Canadian would ever step foot; except if you were a Liberal MP who was also invited.
So last January, the Canadian Ethics commissioner stated that they might look into this vacation if it broke any rules. The PM defended it saying that the Aga Khan was a long time family friend. Which does make sense, he was the son of a former Prime Minister. But the Aga Khan does accept money from the Canadian government, and is a registered lobbyist.
The ethics commissioner had to investigate and has finally concluded that Trudeau did break conflict rules.
But that's ok, Trudeau is sorry. Promises to change and will walk away from this conflict unpunished. But it does rub a little shine off of him. Hopefully, this year to save me from tears, he'll hopefully do something special and stay home.
Last Christmas (try not to sing), Trudeau sparked a controversy by vacationing in Nassau Bahamas. He, like the year prior, attempted to keep where he was vacationing secret, with a legitimate excuse of "he and his family would like privacy." I get it, he's famous and well loved.
But there was more to the story as journalist, the unfake kind, dug deeper. Trudeau actually was on vacation on a private island owned by the Aga Khan. The optics alone, this Prime Minister - champion of middle class, having a vacation where no middle class Canadian would ever step foot; except if you were a Liberal MP who was also invited.
So last January, the Canadian Ethics commissioner stated that they might look into this vacation if it broke any rules. The PM defended it saying that the Aga Khan was a long time family friend. Which does make sense, he was the son of a former Prime Minister. But the Aga Khan does accept money from the Canadian government, and is a registered lobbyist.
The ethics commissioner had to investigate and has finally concluded that Trudeau did break conflict rules.
But that's ok, Trudeau is sorry. Promises to change and will walk away from this conflict unpunished. But it does rub a little shine off of him. Hopefully, this year to save me from tears, he'll hopefully do something special and stay home.
He'll probably go golfing with Donald Trump. Now wouldn't that be a scandal!
The trickle down is already starting if you are a Comcast customer. It's the trickle down of piss falling on your head. Despite the tax cut AND the end of Net Neutrality, they are raising prices on.....EVERYTHING!!! As a matter of fact, this sheet alone shows that over 12 months, Comcast will likely devour your entire (temporary) tax cut.
Here is a chart showing telcom company prices over (roughly) the last decade or so, in relation to inflation. And we're sitting here wondering why AT&T is just sitting on money they can hand out as bonuses they are PRETENDING is a result of a tax cut. In fact, the robbery has been going on for years, and will continue unabated.
Comcast/Universal and Time Warner already have near monopolies on internet and TV service in many areas. When Time Warner merges with AT&T, the behemoth will grow even larger, as will their prices, because there will be no competition. There will be these leviathan-like entities who control all of your access to information, will be able to charge any price for it, and throttle access to any competitors. Oh, and we also just handed them billions upon billions of dollars they can light cigars with as they laugh their asses to the bank. Probably a Swiss Bank, come to think of it.
I post it mainly because there was an argument earlier in the thread over whether the right wing was really all that anti-LGBTQ. Yes, it is, and it has been for decades.
I post it mainly because there was an argument earlier in the thread over whether the right wing was really all that anti-LGBTQ. Yes, it is, and it has been for decades.
Caitlyn Jenner was a high profile supporter of Trump and was totally hoodwinked. She still might be rolling around in a MAGA hat.
Your article considers it wrong to let states decide issue's around LGBT, which implies a type of oppressive moral-ism where your more in favor of Government intrusion insofar as it agrees with your moral agenda.
That type of attitude is anti-liberty and against how the founders wanted America to work.
Once you've gone down the path of always advocating Government intervention for any moral issue, you've pretty much become what you hated, a tyrant that uses power to enforce ones moral agenda.
In many ways, thats how liberals and the left lost their way.
Strictly speaking, if the whole LBGT bathroom debacle is the height of outrage, i can't really treat you seriously.
I post it mainly because there was an argument earlier in the thread over whether the right wing was really all that anti-LGBTQ. Yes, it is, and it has been for decades.
Let's get down to brass tacks here. He stated openly from the stage at the Republican Convention about how great he was going to be for the LGBTQ community. Went out of his way to do so, but he no doubt noticed the crowd decidedly less enthused at that line. Very shortly after he got into office, he banned transgender people from the military. It's entirely worthwhile to discuss whether his Generals just straight up IGNORED his order initially (which would be damn near unprecedented), but we now know they are going to court (because a court blocked this) to actively try to stop and/or kick out people who simply want to serve their country. It is, quite honestly, f******g disgraceful.
But then there is Roy Moore. And for a moment, let's just divorce his own scandals from the equation. Roy Moore believes homosexuality should be illegal. He believes what I would assume is at least 10% of the population in inherently criminal. There is nothing remotely like this kind of thinking from any liberal or Democratic Party anywhere. Show me someone who things heterosexuality should be illegal on the left who has not only ran for major office, but had the President of the United States CAMPAIGN for them days before the election. Forget everything else about Roy Moore. He honestly believes that many of your fellow forum-users in this thread and others are sub-human. And any political party who supports or endorses such views belongs in the dark ages.
Show me someone who things heterosexuality should be illegal on the left who has not only ran for major office, but had the President of the United States
Obama and Hillary are on record to have been against gay marriage.
Don't let the facts get in the way against propaganda.
Your article considers it wrong to let states decide issue's around LGBT, which implies a type of oppressive moral-ism where your more in favor of Government intrusion insofar as it agrees with your moral agenda.
That type of attitude is anti-liberty and against how the founders wanted America to work.
Once you've gone down the path of always advocating Government intervention for any moral issue, you've pretty much become what you hated, a tyrant that uses power to enforce ones moral agenda.
In many ways, thats how liberals and the left lost their way.
Strictly speaking, if the whole LBGT bathroom debacle is the height of outrage, i can't really treat you seriously.
That would be because you are not transgender and apparently have no capacity to empathize with what it might mean to have that hanging over your head. And because you don't understand that the real issue with the bathroom bill was to demonize and (frankly) make trans citizens look like monsters, when as a group they already are beaten and killed at alarming rates, and also have astronomically high rates of suicide compared to the rest of the population.
That would be because you are not transgender and apparently have no capacity to empathize with what it might mean to have that hanging over your head. And because you don't understand that the real issue with the bathroom bill was to demonize and (frankly) make trans citizens look like monsters, when as a group they already are beaten and killed at alarming rates, and also have astronomically high rates of suicide compared to the rest of the population.
I've actually been together with a transgendered person actually.
Show me someone who things heterosexuality should be illegal on the left who has not only ran for major office, but had the President of the United States
Obama and Hillary are on record to have been against gay marriage.
Don't let the facts get in the good way against propaganda.
Because being against gay marriage at one time is exactly the same as wanting to criminalize homosexuality. In what universe?? And do you want me to post the video of Donald Trump campaigning for Roy Moore. Wait, I don't really give a shit if you do or not, here is the video:
You can huff and puff as much as you want, Trump supported Strange over Moore and that is fact, after Moore won the Republican nomination, as the leader of the Republican party he is actually bound to support Moore by his own station, and he wasn't particularly enthusiastic about it.
Both Obama and Hillary were against Gay marriage, thats in relation to your question over democrats and democratic presidents and LGBT.
Your article considers it wrong to let states decide issue's around LGBT, which implies a type of oppressive moral-ism where your more in favor of Government intrusion insofar as it agrees with your moral agenda.
That type of attitude is anti-liberty and against how the founders wanted America to work.
This is such a blatant misrepresentation of the article that I have to assume you didn't read it.
As far as the founders go,
1) Citation needed. And by citation I mean you need to link something that actually backs up your claim. Not just reiterate your opinion like you did the last time I asked for a citation.
2) The founders were also cool with slavery and making black people 3/5ths of a person. I wouldn't try to keep the nation beholden to what they wanted over two centuries ago. Times change.
3) States rights is a dogwhistle for pro-slavery pro-racism arguments. In this case it also serves as a dogwhistle for pro-homophobic and pro-transphobic arguments. It's not that you don't care about the oppression of LGBTQ people, it's just that it should be up to the states to decide how to oppress them, right? Right.
I do not appreciate you mischaracterizing my reasons for posting that article as a "moral agenda." I know that often homophobes like to dogwhistle about the "gay agenda" and I see you're doing that here. The reality is that LGBTQ people deserve the same rights everyone else has, and deserve to be treated with dignity. If the states can't or won't do that, the federal government has every reason to step in. Or the supreme court, as happened with same sex marriage.
It is ironic that you talk about "oppressive moralism" while literally defending the right wing's constant attacks on and oppression of LGBTQ people. The reality is that LGBTQ people face considerable oppression in their day to day lives, never mind regular attacks on their rights to increase that oppression. My so-called "agenda" would reduce that oppression, not increase it.
You can huff and puff as much as you want, Trump supported Strange over Moore and that is fact.
As is both Obama and Hillary being against Gay marriage.
This is like when you said the Democrats backed the KKK and the Republicans ended slavery. Trump supported Strange initially but shifted to support Roy Moore later on. Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage initially but changed their stances.
And them being against gay marriage at one time isn't equivalent to everything the right wing has done to persecute LGBTQ people.
Also, taking you at your word that you were with a transgender person doesn't mean that you are educated about transgender issues, or that you have empathy or compassion toward transgender people. A lot of men who have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters and aunts and grandmothers and so on are misogynist. A lot of white people who date people of color are racist. Knowing someone who's part of a minority doesn't render you proof against being prejudiced against that minority.
And in this case, you seem to be cool with the oppression and persecution of transgender people (if you weren't, you wouldn't defend it as you did).
Because you don't want to discuss thing's that go against the narrative, Obama and Hillary have literally stated to be against gay marriage, even in politics.
Trump supported Strange over Moore during the Republican nomination for the State.
The leader of the Republican party is bound by duty to support whom the Republican voters nominate as their representative in their State, i would imagine that as someone who voted for the Democrat party, you would respect the democratic process a little bit.
Because you don't want to discuss thing's that go against the narrative, Obama and Hillary have literally stated to be against gay marriage, even in politics.
Trump supported Strange over Moore during the Republican nomination for the State.
The leader of the Republican party is bound by duty to support whom the Republican voters nominate as their representative in their State, i would imagine that as someone who voted for the Democrat party, you would respect the democratic process a little bit.
Obama and Hillary Clinton DID come out against it personally in the past. More importantly, neither of them are against it any longer, which, you would have to say, is a pretty positive development, all things considered. An even more positive development was the two Supreme Court Justices Obama appointed who were in the majority opinion on the gay marriage ruling. Also, here is a picture of the Obama White House later that week:
That they 'switched' tends to suggest their support or non-support of it is due to political reasons rather then anything else.
Who cares? I mean really, who? So what if their motives might not have been pure, it's their actions that matter.
You can keep hammering that they were against gay marriage as proof that the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican party, but that just makes you as wrong as a counterfeit three dollar bill. It's hilarious that you accuse @jjstraka34 of not wanting to discuss things that go against the narrative when you flatly refuse to accept actual literal facts.
No one here is even denying they were against it earlier. Need I remind everyone that Bush basically got re-elected because of the Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage that was on the ballot in Ohio in 2004?? The PUBLIC was the problem up until a few years ago. Obama and Hillary changed with the public. Did you watch the Democratic Convention last year?? The LGBTQ community was front and center.
1) Citation needed. And by citation I mean you need to link something that actually backs up your claim. Not just reiterate your opinion like you did the last time I asked for a citation.
We've had discussions about this in the past, the Constitution and the founders were clear that the Federal Government's authority only extends in scope to the enumeration of powers, and nothing more, one of which is declaring war.
Everything else defaults to the state, even law tends towards that marriage is supposed to be decided by the States ergo.
“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States" -Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo,
What you don't realize is that delineating it to the states is a way to protect the liberty of the people, even LBGT, because by doing so it is a check and balance against a Government that Would try to outlaw gay marriage.
In the mad rush to be anti-trump, these people don't realize that by delineating the responsibility and authority correctly to the States as it should be, is the best way to protect the LBGT community against a tyrannical Government.
1) Citation needed. And by citation I mean you need to link something that actually backs up your claim. Not just reiterate your opinion like you did the last time I asked for a citation.
We've had discussions about this in the past, the Constitution and the founders were clear that the Federal Government's authority only extends in scope to the enumeration of powers, and nothing more, one of which is declaring war.
Everything else defaults to the state, even law tends towards that marriage is supposed to be decided by the States ergo.
“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States -Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo,
What you don't realize is that delineating it to the states is a way to protect the liberty of the people, even LBGT, because by doing so it is a check and balance against a Government that Would try to outlaw gay marriage.
They did try to do that. And then the Supreme Court told them to eat shit. What you are ok with is actual people like @BelleSorciere conceivably suffering or not being able to live their life to the fullest because you want to stick to the letter of the law in regards to some Federalist wankery written before there was indoor plumbing and electricity. If she lived in Alabama (which would certainly outlaw it), you would suggest she just MOVE to another state if she wants to get married. Because that isn't totally life-altering. And something NO straight person will ever have to even think about.
1) Citation needed. And by citation I mean you need to link something that actually backs up your claim. Not just reiterate your opinion like you did the last time I asked for a citation.
We've had discussions about this in the past, the Constitution and the founders were clear that the Federal Government's authority only extends in scope to the enumeration of powers, and nothing more, one of which is declaring war.
Everything else defaults to the state, even law tends towards that marriage is supposed to be decided by the States ergo.
“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States" -Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo,
What you don't realize is that delineating it to the states is a way to protect the liberty of the people, even LBGT, because by doing so it is a check and balance against a Government that Would try to outlaw gay marriage.
In the mad rush to be anti-trump, these people don't realize that by delineating the responsibility and authority correctly to the States as it should be, is the best way to protect the LBGT community against a tyrannical Government.
The Federal government did outlaw gay marriage. I look forward to your reasoned essay on why that made their moral agenda oppressive.
Thank you for the citation. Now please explain why we need to be beholden to dudes who thought black people constituted 3/5ths of a person.
Comments
Video:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/20/in-cabinet-meeting-pence-praises-trump-once-every-12-seconds-for-3-minutes-straight/?utm_term=.8462fa5a5748
hahahahahahahahaha omg. srsly? But I guess that's what Trump wants.
And Trump admitted their smarmy sales plan of calling their tax plan as a "middle class miracle" and "jobs bill" was a complete lie.
While talking about the corporate tax rate being cut from 35 percent to 21 percent, Trump said, “That's probably the biggest factor in our plan.”
At that same stage show, Trump's second admission was about the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate being repealed in the bill. Apparently eager to argue that he cut taxes and also had slain Obamacare in one fell swoop (after Congress came up short on Obamacare this year), he argued that repealing the individual mandate was basically the same as repealing Obamacare.
But, he said, he told Republicans not to talk about that. Trump said he told allies to "be quiet with the fake news media because I don't want them talking too much about it." and “Now that it's approved, I can say that.”
Passed by the Senate in the middle of the night a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and a 4.5 trillion dollar tax increase on the poor and middle class. That he won't sign this year because it would completely wipe out Republicans during the 2018 midterms by triggering automatic cuts to Medicare. But it's a middle class miracle! This is probably right. He figures people might not riot on Christmas. He's evilly crafty. Not exactly qualities one wants in a President of the United States.
Last Christmas (try not to sing), Trudeau sparked a controversy by vacationing in Nassau Bahamas. He, like the year prior, attempted to keep where he was vacationing secret, with a legitimate excuse of "he and his family would like privacy." I get it, he's famous and well loved.
But there was more to the story as journalist, the unfake kind, dug deeper. Trudeau actually was on vacation on a private island owned by the Aga Khan. The optics alone, this Prime Minister - champion of middle class, having a vacation where no middle class Canadian would ever step foot; except if you were a Liberal MP who was also invited.
So last January, the Canadian Ethics commissioner stated that they might look into this vacation if it broke any rules. The PM defended it saying that the Aga Khan was a long time family friend. Which does make sense, he was the son of a former Prime Minister. But the Aga Khan does accept money from the Canadian government, and is a registered lobbyist.
The ethics commissioner had to investigate and has finally concluded that Trudeau did break conflict rules.
But that's ok, Trudeau is sorry. Promises to change and will walk away from this conflict unpunished. But it does rub a little shine off of him. Hopefully, this year to save me from tears, he'll hopefully do something special and stay home.
Here is a chart showing telcom company prices over (roughly) the last decade or so, in relation to inflation. And we're sitting here wondering why AT&T is just sitting on money they can hand out as bonuses they are PRETENDING is a result of a tax cut. In fact, the robbery has been going on for years, and will continue unabated.
Comcast/Universal and Time Warner already have near monopolies on internet and TV service in many areas. When Time Warner merges with AT&T, the behemoth will grow even larger, as will their prices, because there will be no competition. There will be these leviathan-like entities who control all of your access to information, will be able to charge any price for it, and throttle access to any competitors. Oh, and we also just handed them billions upon billions of dollars they can light cigars with as they laugh their asses to the bank. Probably a Swiss Bank, come to think of it.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-terrible-anti-lgbtq-first-year-of-the-promised-pro-gay-president-trump/
I post it mainly because there was an argument earlier in the thread over whether the right wing was really all that anti-LGBTQ. Yes, it is, and it has been for decades.
That type of attitude is anti-liberty and against how the founders wanted America to work.
Once you've gone down the path of always advocating Government intervention for any moral issue, you've pretty much become what you hated, a tyrant that uses power to enforce ones moral agenda.
In many ways, thats how liberals and the left lost their way.
Strictly speaking, if the whole LBGT bathroom debacle is the height of outrage, i can't really treat you seriously.
But then there is Roy Moore. And for a moment, let's just divorce his own scandals from the equation. Roy Moore believes homosexuality should be illegal. He believes what I would assume is at least 10% of the population in inherently criminal. There is nothing remotely like this kind of thinking from any liberal or Democratic Party anywhere. Show me someone who things heterosexuality should be illegal on the left who has not only ran for major office, but had the President of the United States CAMPAIGN for them days before the election. Forget everything else about Roy Moore. He honestly believes that many of your fellow forum-users in this thread and others are sub-human. And any political party who supports or endorses such views belongs in the dark ages.
Don't let the facts get in the way against propaganda.
Both Obama and Hillary were against Gay marriage, thats in relation to your question over democrats and democratic presidents and LGBT.
Which is further then even Trump btw.
As far as the founders go,
1) Citation needed. And by citation I mean you need to link something that actually backs up your claim. Not just reiterate your opinion like you did the last time I asked for a citation.
2) The founders were also cool with slavery and making black people 3/5ths of a person. I wouldn't try to keep the nation beholden to what they wanted over two centuries ago. Times change.
3) States rights is a dogwhistle for pro-slavery pro-racism arguments. In this case it also serves as a dogwhistle for pro-homophobic and pro-transphobic arguments. It's not that you don't care about the oppression of LGBTQ people, it's just that it should be up to the states to decide how to oppress them, right? Right.
I do not appreciate you mischaracterizing my reasons for posting that article as a "moral agenda." I know that often homophobes like to dogwhistle about the "gay agenda" and I see you're doing that here. The reality is that LGBTQ people deserve the same rights everyone else has, and deserve to be treated with dignity. If the states can't or won't do that, the federal government has every reason to step in. Or the supreme court, as happened with same sex marriage.
It is ironic that you talk about "oppressive moralism" while literally defending the right wing's constant attacks on and oppression of LGBTQ people. The reality is that LGBTQ people face considerable oppression in their day to day lives, never mind regular attacks on their rights to increase that oppression. My so-called "agenda" would reduce that oppression, not increase it.
This is like when you said the Democrats backed the KKK and the Republicans ended slavery. Trump supported Strange initially but shifted to support Roy Moore later on. Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage initially but changed their stances.
And them being against gay marriage at one time isn't equivalent to everything the right wing has done to persecute LGBTQ people.
Also, taking you at your word that you were with a transgender person doesn't mean that you are educated about transgender issues, or that you have empathy or compassion toward transgender people. A lot of men who have wives and daughters and mothers and sisters and aunts and grandmothers and so on are misogynist. A lot of white people who date people of color are racist. Knowing someone who's part of a minority doesn't render you proof against being prejudiced against that minority.
And in this case, you seem to be cool with the oppression and persecution of transgender people (if you weren't, you wouldn't defend it as you did).
Trump supported Strange over Moore during the Republican nomination for the State.
The leader of the Republican party is bound by duty to support whom the Republican voters nominate as their representative in their State, i would imagine that as someone who voted for the Democrat party, you would respect the democratic process a little bit.
That they 'switched' tends to suggest their support or non-support of it is due to political reasons rather then anything else.
Clinton in the 90's was against gay marriage, and publicly was against New York recognizing it.
You can keep hammering that they were against gay marriage as proof that the Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican party, but that just makes you as wrong as a counterfeit three dollar bill. It's hilarious that you accuse @jjstraka34 of not wanting to discuss things that go against the narrative when you flatly refuse to accept actual literal facts.
At this point you're just spamming the thread with this claim.
Everything else defaults to the state, even law tends towards that marriage is supposed to be decided by the States ergo.
“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States"
-Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo,
What you don't realize is that delineating it to the states is a way to protect the liberty of the people, even LBGT, because by doing so it is a check and balance against a Government that Would try to outlaw gay marriage.
In the mad rush to be anti-trump, these people don't realize that by delineating the responsibility and authority correctly to the States as it should be, is the best way to protect the LBGT community against a tyrannical Government.
Thank you for the citation. Now please explain why we need to be beholden to dudes who thought black people constituted 3/5ths of a person.