Hillary and Trump

[Kar3n]

You are following me around carefully checking to find contradictions and yet say nothing in regards to the veiled and overt misogyny in this thread.

 

To understand my syntax and semantics, read Korzybski.

 

That is funny No, not following you around, I have memory like a steel trap.

 

Misogyny... I have responded to reports in this very thread on the matter, so you are mistaken.

[ralis]

A "strongman" who doesn't play by the rules of the corrupt authorities

and who is not interested to push the globalist NWO agenda

is exactly what America needs right now to change the position of "the small man" for the better.

And Trump's voters have understood that.

 

How do you know Trump will behave in the manner that you so wish? Wilhelm Reich said it best in his essay; Rede an den kleinen Mann

[joeblast]

Resorting to ad homs against me Joe? Keep on showing your true self and the incessant need for a strongman.

when you put your progressive ideology above the constitution, what the hell do you expect me to think?

 

with DT its not strongman, its more the willingness to call a spade a spade.  you know how I like that, right? 

[ralis]

That is funny No, not following you around, I have memory like a steel trap.

 

Misogyny... I have responded to reports in this very thread on the matter, so you are mistaken.

 

Respond in public or private? If public please post thread and comments.

[Karl]

Here's who voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

 

 

 

 

No,no, no Mr Ralis, this is not about your own spreading of feminist propaganda.

 

I knew there was something fishy about a 'violence against women act'. It didn't take long to discover more inverted sexism and the blatent crushing of due process. These acts, like black lives matter, are specifically named to prevent disagreement and then used in retrospect as clubs of shame.

 

Who can possibly object to 'black lives matter' or the prevention of 'violence against women' ? Everybody wants those things right ? How could any right thinking person object. Of course once the real motive is discovered and the act is not passed, then the sexist can show the evidence that 'those senators voted against protecting women from violence' what sort of monsters must they be. Oh I know they are rapist men.

 

As you delight in taking people to task for anything you consider mildly racist-which I regard as you playing with faux concern-I hold your post in the highest contemp of blatent bigotry and with intent to incite hatred.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

when you put your progressive ideology above the constitution, what the hell do you expect me to think?

 

with DT its not strongman, its more the willingness to call a spade a spade.  you know how I like that, right? 

 

He could be lying his ass off and you think he tells it like it is. I think it goes much deeper than that Joe.

[ralis]

A "strongman" is a person who does not bow before the established authorities.

That seems to be terrible in your opinion then,

no matter what the intentions of the "strongman" are.

A pretty superficial point of view that projects a completely wrong message.

When the established authorities are corrupt,

only a "strongman" with a good agenda can change things for the better for the common people.

Not every "strongman" has the intention to make things worse, on the contrary.

And Trump is the right "strongman" to change the system for the better of the small man in the US.

 

In this country, the POTUS has infinite power to clean house? Please educate me as to how that works given that the DOJ is separate from the Executive branch? POTUS has no power to prosecute in any way shape or form.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[Karl]

Obviously you don't understand how it works here. The returns show all assets, investments and full disclosure of every cent.

Yes but collateralised in total. I don't know what you think you would discover ?

 

This is a sample right ?

 

https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/1040a.pdf

 

You can get shares and earnings, but it's almost like reading the back of a book. The gist of it is there, but no fine detail. If you wanted to know who his creditors and debtors were then you would need access to the books themselves.

[ralis]

No,no, no Mr Ralis, this is not about your own spreading of feminist propaganda.

 

I knew there was something fishy about a 'violence against women act'. It didn't take long to discover more inverted sexism and the blatent crushing of due process. These acts, like black lives matter, are specifically named to prevent disagreement and then used in retrospect as clubs of shame.

 

Who can possibly object to 'black lives matter' or the prevention of 'violence against women' ? Everybody wants those things right ? How could any right thinking person object. Of course once the real motive is discovered and the act is not passed, then the sexist can show the evidence that 'those senators voted against protecting women from violence' what sort of monsters must they be. Oh I know they are rapist men.

 

As you delight in taking people to task for anything you consider mildly racist-which I regard as you playing with faux concern-I hold your post in the highest contemp of blatent bigotry and with intent to incite hatred.

 

 

Here is why they opposed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

 

 

VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005, and signed by President George W. Bush.^[5] The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas.^[6] Ultimately, VAWA was again reauthorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle throughout 2012–2013.^[7]

[ralis]

Yes but collateralised in total. I don't know what you think you would discover ?

 

This is a sample right ?

 

https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/1040a.pdf

 

You can get shares and earnings, but it's almost like reading the back of a book. The gist of it is there, but no fine detail. If you wanted to know who his creditors and debtors were then you would need access to the books themselves.

 

Don't comment on a small piece of the voluminous tax code unless you know it from top to bottom. For corporations it is extremely complicated and detailed.

 

I guess you are a US tax expert now. BTW, the code is 70,000 pages long.

Edited October 13, 2016 by ralis

[ralis]

No,no, no Mr Ralis, this is not about your own spreading of feminist propaganda.

 

I knew there was something fishy about a 'violence against women act'. It didn't take long to discover more inverted sexism and the blatent crushing of due process. These acts, like black lives matter, are specifically named to prevent disagreement and then used in retrospect as clubs of shame.

 

Who can possibly object to 'black lives matter' or the prevention of 'violence against women' ? Everybody wants those things right ? How could any right thinking person object. Of course once the real motive is discovered and the act is not passed, then the sexist can show the evidence that 'those senators voted against protecting women from violence' what sort of monsters must they be. Oh I know they are rapist men.

 

As you delight in taking people to task for anything you consider mildly racist-which I regard as you playing with faux concern-I hold your post in the highest contemp of blatent bigotry and with intent to incite hatred.

 

You didn't comment on the second image regarding Republicans comments on rape.

[Karl]

Don't comment on a small piece of the voluminous tax code unless you know it from top to bottom. For corporations it is extremely complicated and detailed.

Do you know it from top to bottom ?

 

You specifically said Trumps personal tax submission and not his companies tax submission. Trump doesn't fill in a different one to everyone else.

 

Here is how it works. A company keeps books and from those books accountants prepare the official accounts. These are then signed off by the BoD as a true record and submitted to the tax office. The submission itself can be large, but it is nothing like the information contained in the books. The tax office chooses to audit some companies and can do so virtually at will. A large team of tax specialists and accountants decend on the head office and begin comparing the signed off accounts with the books. Any errors are noted and if there is sufficient doubt about the numbers it can lead to a forensic study followed by court action.

 

Meanwhile Trump is a director of the business and holds a portion of the shares. He receives a directors income and a dividend. If He has other income earning assets these are shown separately. No doubt his wife will be part of the team so it will be Mr and Mrs Trump. That's literally all you will get.

 

The only reason Trump might refuse his tax returns to be shown is that he is afraid of the comments of the idiots who will note he doesn't currently pay any tax because of the losses he incurred on which he had already paid tax.

[ralis]

when you put your progressive ideology above the constitution, what the hell do you expect me to think?

 

with DT its not strongman, its more the willingness to call a spade a spade.  you know how I like that, right? 

 

You appear to hold the view of Justice Scalia that the Constitution is a dead document. There are many Constitutional lawyers that disagree with that notion. It is the tea bagger party that has been drilling this notion of the dead document Constitution in the minds of gullible persons.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

Do you know it from top to bottom ?

 

You specifically said Trumps personal tax submission and not his companies tax submission. Trump doesn't fill in a different one to everyone else.

 

Here is how it works. A company keeps books and from those books accountants prepare the official accounts. These are then signed off by the BoD as a true record and submitted to the tax office. The submission itself can be large, but it is nothing like the information contained in the books. The tax office chooses to audit some companies and can do so virtually at will. A large team of tax specialists and accountants decend on the head office and begin comparing the signed off accounts with the books. Any errors are noted and if there is sufficient doubt about the numbers it can lead to a forensic study followed by court action.

 

Meanwhile Trump is a director of the business and holds a portion of the shares. He receives a directors income and a dividend. If He has other income earning assets these are shown separately. No doubt his wife will be part of the team so it will be Mr and Mrs Trump. That's literally all you will get.

 

The only reason Trump might refuse his tax returns to be shown is that he is afraid of the comments of the idiots who will note he doesn't currently pay any tax because of the losses he incurred on which he had already paid tax.

 

You don't understand how it works here in the US. Or, how his corporation is set up. End of discussion!

[Karl]

You didn't comment on the second image regarding Republicans comments on rape.

Because I have no intention of defending republicans nor any political party. I'm only interested in your use of sexist material which has been reproduced to incite hatred. I do not agree with that act regardless of whether it includes or does not include gay couples. The law is looking more and more like that which was practiced in Nazi Germany. You are guilty now prove your innocence. Horrifying.

[Karl]

You don't understand how it works here in the US. Or, how his corporation is set up. End of discussion!

And you won't find out, which will be the end of your discussion.

[blackstar212]

You seem to be a weakminded and fatalist individual who gives willingly into the destiny the established authorities have planned for him,

like a cow going willfully to the butcher because its owner wants it to,

an individual without hope and without positive self-assertion,

and your only reason to input in this thread is to destroy the hope and self-assertion of other individuals,

so they become as weak as you, lose their hope and join your lemming-walk.

Your behavior and your motivation are disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Is that so?

[ralis]

Because I have no intention of defending republicans nor any political party. I'm only interested in your use of sexist material which has been reproduced to incite hatred. I do not agree with that act regardless of whether it includes or does not include gay couples. The law is looking more and more like that which was practiced in Nazi Germany. You are guilty now prove your innocence. Horrifying.

:lol:

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[joeblast]

You appear to hold the view of Justice Scalia that the Constitution is a dead document. There are many Constitutional lawyers that disagree with that notion. It is the tea bagger party that has been drilling this notion of the dead document Constitution in the minds of gullible persons.

Dead?  Its being systematically murdered, I'll give you that...

 

Look, all amendments MUST be consistent with the bill of rights.  If its not, GTFO.  Its really pretty simple.  If it didnt get ratified properly, if it is odious to the bill of rights, Marbury vs Madison, it is automatically null and void.

 

What about that is so hard to understand?

[ralis]

Dead?  Its being systematically murdered, I'll give you that...

 

Look, all amendments MUST be consistent with the bill of rights.  If its not, GTFO.  Its really pretty simple.  If it didnt get ratified properly, if it is odious to the bill of rights, Marbury vs Madison, it is automatically null and void.

 

What about that is so hard to understand?

 

He takes the originalism position, which is not what you think. BTW, I know you display a certain arrogance or shall we say a condescending/patronizing attitude towards me here, but that attitude is not becoming to an intelligent person.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester