Re: Trump
« Reply #1260 on: April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM »
No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Given that the plan is to lower the top tier tax rate for owner-operated businesses to 15%, which the majority of businesses pay less than anyway (link), this plan helps large businesses the most. If Trump wanted to help average Americans, he could adjust the lower tiers. It's not really a stretch to come to the conclusion that lowering the top tier tax rate is largely to benefit himself, who pays the top tier tax rate of 39.6%, rather than average Americans who pay below the top tier.


That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg didn't change his tune. Trump did, remember? The whole "NATO was obsolete but now isn't" deal? Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now, after he switched tunes on NATO. The quote from July 2016 I provided shows he didn't agree with him when Trump hadn't changed his mind. If anyone is lying, it's the person trying to sell Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign, which is obviously not true.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 11:22:40 AM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1261 on: April 26, 2017, 01:39:48 PM »
Stoltenberg didn't change his tune.
You presented sources to the effect of Stoltenberg disagreeing with Trump 10 months ago. I presented sources to the effect of him "totally agreeing" with Trump on the very same issue, shortly before Trump said he's satisfied with the resolution of his complaint.

Trekky. Why do you lie?

Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now
Indeed, this meeting directly preceded Trump saying that he's happier with NATO now. The chronology is trivial here: they meet, they talk, Stoltenberg agrees with Trump and promises to improve matters, Trump withdraws his complaint because it's now being dealt with. Both Stoltenberg and Trump made it abundantly clear that this is the case in separate statements.

So, answer me: what do you gain by lying about this?

Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO
Stoltenberg's comments, perhaps unsurprisingly, do not exist in a vacuum. They're responses to very specific questions, and these questions include Trump quotes from months ago. Let's examine an example:

BLITZER: We're back with NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, who just wrapped up his meetings with the president over at the White House.

About a year or so ago, Secretary-General, I interviewed then candidate Donald Trump, and we had this exchange on NATO. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you think the United States needs to rethink U.S. involvement in NATO?

TRUMP: Yes, because it's costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They're going to have to put some up also. We're playing disproportionately. It's too much. And frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. And everybody got together.

But we're taking care of -- as an example, the Ukraine. I mean, the countries over there don't seem to be so interested. We're the ones taking the brunt of it. So I think we have to reconsider keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward the NATO itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, today, the president said he no longer believes NATO is obsolete.

Did you ask him at the White House to make that statement?

STOLTENBERG: I didn't ask him.

But we discussed how NATO is adapting, how NATO is responding and changing, because the world is changing. And I stated clearly that NATO is the most successful alliance in history because we have been able again and again to change when the world was changing.

But I agree with President Trump that European allies and Canada have to invest more in our collective defense. And that's exactly what they have started to do.
So, we've got a Trump quote from "a year or so ago", and we have a direct response from Stoltenberg, saying (j'accuse!) that he agrees with Trump and that they started to work on the issue. Unfathomable, it's almost as if you were lying through your teeth!

as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign
Nobody is claiming that, but kudos on the misdirection attempt. You know, lying about current events is one thing - one has to Google them to find out you're lying. Lying about something posted here is a new low - anyone can simply scroll up and see what's been claimed to date.

But the "if" is obvious. I'm very curious about the "why". Why do you lie, Trekky?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 02:26:02 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1262 on: April 26, 2017, 06:28:47 PM »
The full tax overhaul has been released.

Highlights:

  • The income tax brackets are simplified to 10%, 25%, and 35%.
  • The estate tax is gone.
  • The alternative minimum tax is gone.
  • Corporate tax rate is lowered to 15%.
  • Pass-through tax rate is lowered to 15%.
  • The standard deduction is doubled.
  • Most tax deductions are gone aside from those pertaining to home ownership, retirement savings, and charitable donations.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1263 on: April 26, 2017, 07:32:35 PM »
Well... gotta say, that is actually a good outline.  I especially like removing all but 3 tax deductions.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1264 on: April 26, 2017, 11:19:08 PM »
Based on what I've seen so far I will benefit from this tax plan. No surprise there really; sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left who remembers how awesome taxes were under GW.

Now if he would do away with that pesky Consumer Financial Protection Bureau like he promised...
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1265 on: April 27, 2017, 04:29:14 AM »
Based on what I've seen so far I will benefit from this tax plan. No surprise there really; sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left who remembers how awesome taxes were under GW.

Now if he would do away with that pesky Consumer Financial Protection Bureau like he promised...


I, however, will not benefit.  By removing the tax deduction on student loan interest paid, I'm not likely to have anything back.


Of course, I currently have no income so its a moot point for now.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1266 on: April 28, 2017, 05:46:13 AM »
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA

I chuckled.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330925-spicer-blames-obama-for-flynns-security-clearance
Eh, he's got a point.  Obama's administration did renew his security clearance.  Sucks for Trump that he hired him though.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1267 on: April 28, 2017, 10:27:00 AM »
Wait, you mean being President of the USA involves doing work? Bah, that's bullshit, I'm no longer pursuing the presidency.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1268 on: April 28, 2017, 01:04:41 PM »
Well... gotta say, that is actually a good outline.  I especially like removing all but 3 tax deductions.

This preliminary tax plan does have a loophole where anyone with a tax rate over 15% would be encouraged to just start their own S-corporation and be taxed under the pass-through corporate tax rate instead of their income tax rate. I believe this happened in Kansas when they lowered their pass-through rate dramatically. I'm pretty sure that's why usually the pass-through rate is identical to the income tax rate.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1269 on: April 28, 2017, 02:35:56 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-all-set-to-terminate-inside-trumps-sudden-shift-on-nafta/2017/04/27/0452a3fa-2b65-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.579ef86185c4

yeah weird it's almost as if he never had a clue what he was talking about and just told people whatever they wanted to hear to get their votes.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1270 on: April 28, 2017, 02:57:04 PM »
Wait, you mean being President of the USA involves doing work? Bah, that's bullshit, I'm no longer pursuing the presidency.

I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1271 on: April 28, 2017, 03:37:58 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-all-set-to-terminate-inside-trumps-sudden-shift-on-nafta/2017/04/27/0452a3fa-2b65-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.579ef86185c4

yeah weird it's almost as if he never had a clue what he was talking about and just told people whatever they wanted to hear to get their votes.

HA!

The Trump Presidency is proof that there are no simple solutions, no matter how popular they are.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1272 on: April 28, 2017, 05:02:27 PM »
I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?
I mean, it's not like Bill Clinton, Dubya or Obama made a good case against it :^)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1273 on: April 28, 2017, 05:06:11 PM »
I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?
I mean, it's not like Bill Clinton, Dubya or Obama made a good case against it :^)

All men with careers in public office behind them.  Yes, people who become President tend to be rich.  They also tend to have experience.  I doubt Obama went in thinking being President would be a walk in the park.

Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1274 on: April 28, 2017, 07:31:54 PM »
All men with careers in public office behind them.  Yes, people who become President tend to be rich.  They also tend to have experience.  I doubt Obama went in thinking being President would be a walk in the park.
I was specifically commenting on them being "pampered spoiled rich man-children", nothing else. I agree that all of them likely understood the gravity of their position well before they took office.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1275 on: April 29, 2017, 12:28:05 AM »
I was specifically commenting on them being "pampered spoiled rich man-children", nothing else.

Well I'm willing to give you Bill and Dubya on that one but Obama?
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Re: Trump
« Reply #1276 on: April 29, 2017, 01:25:10 AM »
Does Bill Clinton really fit the bill? Pretty sure their net worth before the presidency was low compared to other presidents, and Hillary was making more than he was.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1277 on: April 29, 2017, 02:56:17 PM »
Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1278 on: April 29, 2017, 03:00:55 PM »
Why would you use other presidents as your benchmark? Do they innately belong to some other category from ordinary people? I thought we mostly did away with the idea of nobility.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1279 on: April 29, 2017, 03:05:04 PM »
Why would you use other presidents as your benchmark? Do they innately belong to some other category from ordinary people? I thought we mostly did away with the idea of nobility.

But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)