American Politics

[The Fly]

I'm not sure I see anything crazy about what you posted. Those stats seem pretty much in line with most countries. Richer people in general pay more tax. It's hardly groundbreaking.

Hence 'crazy'.

I just think it's important for people to be much aware of facts before entering discussions concerning the advancement of equality. For example, when people talk about those in the top and bottom income brackets (i.e 'the rich' and 'the poor') they are often discussed as if they are different classes of people, when they are often in fact just people at different stages of their lives.

Take the following statistic - 56% of all American households will be in the top 10% at some point; usually when they're older. Furthermore, of all the people in the top 1% over the course of a decade the majority are there for just one year, and only 13% are there for two years.


What the US has an issue with is inequality.

There are a number of factors behind that: the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, together with technological change and globalisation being the major contributors -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41y4c1Oi5Uo

Much of which explains the election of Trump.


Warren Buffet famously commented over 15 years ago now that he paid a lesser rate of tax than his secretary. America is clearly an unequal society. CBS did an interesting piece on it recently. (No pun intended incase the Pun Police are around :) )

https://youtu.be/DANUXO-GQwU

Once upon a Time a Republican government in the US made the super rich pay up to 70% on estate taxes as well as other wealth taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax
In general, the United States federal income tax is progressive, as rates of tax generally increase as taxable income increases, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income. ... As recently as the late 1970s, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 70%









Ahh but you've left something very important out there. What was the tax revenue collected from those who fell within that bracket, and what was the proportion of the total tax take contributed by the wealthy when the rate was 70%?

[The Fly]

What did AOC do to you?

Last I heard of her she was saving NYC taxpayers $3bn in subsidies for the world's richest person. Tangible savings for the people there - the absolute opposite of rhetoric.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/amazon-new-york-city-offices-lease

Not bad.

Nothing, it's just that the likely effect of her desire to increase the top personal income tax rate to 70% will be to reduce the tax take.

[samhaydenjr]

Nothing, it's just that the likely effect of her desire to increase the top personal income tax rate to 70% will be to reduce the tax take.


The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics) reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-range) of around 70%.

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

[The Fly]

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


The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics) reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-range) of around 70%.


Or we could look at what actually happened when the top marginal rate was 70%. Just an idea...:rolleyes:

[peadar1987]

Or we could look at what actually happened when the top marginal rate was 70%. Just an idea...:rolleyes:

If you have the data to hand that would be great. I haven't been able to find it.

[The Fly]

If you have the data to hand that would be great. I haven't been able to find it.

https://cdn.cnsnews.com/top_marginal_income_tax_rate_vs._share_of_taxes_by _the_top_one-half_percent_of_earners_1960-2013.png

https://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/taxrates.jpg

[Real ale Madrid]

Why are the two scales on the left and right y axis on those graphs different if they both represent the same thing. (I.e. %) I guess it proves your point in a way (maybe) but the graphs skew the information for dramatic effect.

[The Fly]

Why are the two scales on the left and right y axis on those graphs different if they both represent the same thing. (I.e. %) I guess it proves your point in a way (maybe) but the graphs skew the information for dramatic effect.

I just think everyone should start with the basic premise that government policies influence human behaviour, and therefore that higher tax rates on individuals (and businesses) do not automatically result in higher revenues for the government. Indeed, history shows that high marginal tax rates on those in the highest earning bracket produces less revenue from said earners for the government. At a certain point, high tax rates on those with high incomes simply led to those incomes being invested in various tax-free schemes, with the revenue from them being completely lost to the government, and the investments lost to the economy.

It all depends on what the rate actually is in other words. I suppose the question that should be asked is whether people really prefer the symbolism of higher tax rates, or the substance of higher tax revenue?

All in all, I'd just prefer it if people were much more aware of facts (then the rhetoric from either side of the political spectrum wouldn't hold as much sway). The facts in this case being that part of the effect of raising taxes on the super rich is to incentivise those in that bracket to arrange their financial affairs in such a way so as to avoid paying the higher rate. Raise it too high and you incentivise them to leave.

* I take your point re: dramatic effect.

[peadar1987]

I think that the charts you linked are perhaps more symptomatic of growing inequality than capital flight, tax evasion, or disincentivisation of excellence.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/downsample150to92/public/atoms/files/1-13-20pov-f3.png?itok=rYAyy3wO
The 1% are paying a greater proportion of the tax, because they are controlling a greater proportion of the income.

[samhaydenjr]

Nothing, it's just that the likely effect of her desire to increase the top personal income tax rate to 70% will be to reduce the tax take.


Or we could look at what actually happened when the top marginal rate was 70%. Just an idea...:rolleyes:

Fly, you switched from talking about the overall revenue effects of a higher upper tax rate to bringing in statistics about the proportion of taxes paid by the rich at various tax levels - two different debates. Here's the historical tax take as a percentage of GDP for the US. It would appear that the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts did lead to reductions that were not recovered as a result of a direct increase in economic activity - so it's likely that the Trump tax cuts will have a similar effect and could leave the US less able to quickly fight an economic downturn

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945%E2%80%932015.jpg

[dahamsta]

We’re having a conversation are we not?

We are not, given your posts in this thread. I don't know if you believe what you're saying or if you're just having a little fun, but I won't be conversing with you on these issues. It's not funny. It's dangerous, and I'm not engaging with it bar continuing to post facts and information in the hope that the gullible and/or uneducated won't follow your lead. You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions. They are destroying society and they disgust me.

[SkStu]

We are not, given your posts in this thread. I don't know if you believe what you're saying or if you're just having a little fun, but I won't be conversing with you on these issues. It's not funny. It's dangerous, and I'm not engaging with it bar continuing to post facts and information in the hope that the gullible and/or uneducated won't follow your lead. You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions. They are destroying society and they disgust me.

Wait a minute here. What gives you the right to try and tell me my beliefs and/or actions are disgusting and that i should be ashamed of myself or that i am doing this for a laugh? I have done next to nothing on here in bad faith and tried to enter into a dialogue with anyone who is interested - while at the same time trying to defend my opinion. I don't think i have ever said anything that warrants the above type of response. Nothing i have said is dangerous or, if it is, i would like to know what it is that meets that benchmark.

YOU engaged with ME, apparently taking umbrage with a post that says we should reserve our ire (and delight in a terminal cancer diagnosis) for those that truly deserve it. But really, if you don't want to have a conversation or enter into an honest, reciprocal dialogue then my tip would be maybe don't respond to my posts. Maybe put me on your ignore list or something if my posts cause this type of overreaction in you. Or ban me if i am all of the things you accuse me of. Otherwise, just calm down. Disagreement with one another doesn't make either of us a dangerous/disgusting/shameful individual - it should be a starting point for honest discussion not for shouting the other down.

[DeLorean]

We are not, given your posts in this thread. I don't know if you believe what you're saying or if you're just having a little fun, but I won't be conversing with you on these issues. It's not funny. It's dangerous, and I'm not engaging with it bar continuing to post facts and information in the hope that the gullible and/or uneducated won't follow your lead. You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions. They are destroying society and they disgust me.

A lack of tolerance for the views of others is also destroying society, Dear Leader.

[Real ale Madrid]

A lack of tolerance for the views of others is also destroying society,

Who's not tolerating? Everyone is entitled to their view. No-one is being stopped from posting anything within reason of back-up. If someone posts up information defending a racist, misogynistic, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic, incompetent idiot like Trump - be prepared that people will react in kind.

[DeLorean]

Who's not tolerating? Everyone is entitled to their view. No-one is being stopped from posting anything within reason of back-up. If someone posts up information defending a racist, misogynistic, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic, incompetent idiot like Trump - be prepared that people will react in kind.

"You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions."

That's not very tolerant language. Saying he won't engage isn't very tolerant either, and laughable seeing as he was the one who engaged in the first place! Stu's been here a long time and has had thousands of posts on all kind of topics. I think he deserves more respect than being suspected as a wum.

[Real ale Madrid]

"You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions."

That's not very tolerant language.

Trump is not a very tolerant president. As I said, defend him and expect to be responded to in kind.


[I]Saying he won't engage isn't very tolerant either, and laughable seeing as he was the one who engaged in the first place!

Its a free forum and people are free to engage with whomever they like.



[I] Stu's been here a long time and has had thousands of posts on all kind of topics. I think he deserves more respect than being suspected as a wum.

So if you have a certain amount of posts you can say what you like? That makes no sense.

Your post earlier reminds me of people who go on about 'snowflakes' in social media but get thick then if people reply in kind.

[DeLorean]

Trump is not a very tolerant president. As I said, defend him and expect to be responded to in kind.

Yes, I'd expect to be challenged by way of a counter argument. I wouldn't expect to be told 'I should be ashamed' for having a different perspective.



Its a free forum and people are free to engage with whomever they like.

It's not that free (e.g. pungate). Seriously though, dahamsta DID engage with Stu, he initiated the whole exchange, before bizarrely telling Stu 'Not everything is about him'.



So if you have a certain amount of posts you can say what you like? That makes no sense.

I think it makes perfect sense. Your reputation is built over a period of time. Stu has been a courteous, well informed poster. There's no reason to openly suspect his motives are anything more sinister than having an alternative world view.


Your post earlier reminds me of people who go on about 'snowflakes' in social media but get thick then if people reply in kind.

Has somebody got thick (other than dahamsta, I mean)?

[dahamsta]

I will engage with people who post facts and sources. I will not engage with anyone that doesn't. Neither of the pro-Trump posters in this thread post credible sources.

Honestly, they should have been banned long ago for breaking the general rule in this forum requiring sources, however I haven't done so because I don't want to be accused of bias; and, bizarrely, because no-one reports them.

My opinion is that their beliefs and/or behaviour with regard to Trump and the GOP are disgusting. It's not funny, it is dangerous. I won't engage with it. People should have learned by now that they can't be talked down. It's a waste of time and energy.

[SkStu]

Says the guy who posts his facts from u/discoxhorse off reddit. Give me a break.

Go back over this thread and look at the sources I post when offering my thoughts and opinions. They all come from the same places others get there’s. Guess why. Because I’m in a position where I have to take care in backing up what I claim to know or information that helps form an opinion. I have to be careful it comes from a left leaning or neutral media site. Whereas others get to post from all the above plus other extremely anti-Trump sites (vox, buzzfeed, huffpost) with no questions asked. I suspect I haven’t been banned or reported because I haven’t don’t ANYTHING wrong.

As you are so fond of saying, opinions must be backed up with facts and sources. Your opinion is that I am a dangerous poster that has displayed shameful beliefs and/or actions. Your words. Your opinion. Please identify the posts where I have displayed this or issue yourself with a refraction and stern warning.

But I know you are just itching to ban me. So be my guest. You’ve done it before on here. You’ve already shown your bias and authoritarian nature. You have nothing to lose. It will probably make you feel better and help you calm down and get some perspective on all of this which is truly what the biggest issue here is cos it ain’t me.

[Stuttgart88]

I just think everyone should start with the basic premise that government policies influence human behaviour, and therefore that higher tax rates on individuals (and businesses) do not automatically result in higher revenues for the government. Indeed, history shows that high marginal tax rates on those in the highest earning bracket produces less revenue from said earners for the government. At a certain point, high tax rates on those with high incomes simply led to those incomes being invested in various tax-free schemes, with the revenue from them being completely lost to the government, and the investments lost to the economy.

It all depends on what the rate actually is in other words. I suppose the question that should be asked is whether people really prefer the symbolism of higher tax rates, or the substance of higher tax revenue?

All in all, I'd just prefer it if people were much more aware of facts (then the rhetoric from either side of the political spectrum wouldn't hold as much sway). The facts in this case being that part of the effect of raising taxes on the super rich is to incentivise those in that bracket to arrange their financial affairs in such a way so as to avoid paying the higher rate. Raise it too high and you incentivise them to leave.

* I take your point re: dramatic effect.
Just on the tax discussion above. The focus above is on income tax. But there are indirect taxes too. Sales taxes / VAT, capital gains etc. The “poor” are disproportionately affected by VAT for example, yet that’s rarely discussed.

The “rich” earn a far higher share of their income from their returns on capital than from their labour; and vice versa for the poor. The poor and middle parts of the income distribution spend more of their increased disposable income from tax cuts than wealthy people do. To boost GDP this is where tax cuts should be targeted. In many developed countries marginal tax cuts to the rich have been shown to be spent on imported luxury goods, so yield no net gain to GDP. Tax cuts are generally an elegant, politically popular but difficult solution. If I was to design fiscal policy I’d look at higher spending rather than lower taxation as a fiscal boost. The adage “you know how to spend your money better than the government” is a nice soundbite but in truth I have no idea how to spend money on health, infrastructure, education or transport etc.

Trickledown economics has been discredited. Everyone can see that. And the Laffer Curve is another great seemingly intuitive soundbite but evidence shows it only holds true when the marginal tax rate is reduced from an already very high tax rate. Without appearing facetious if the Laffer Curve really was a theorem, reducing tax to zero would yield infinite tax revenue. So, as samhaydenjr alludes to above, there is a point somewhere where tax cuts help, but it’s difficult to quantify where – but it’s shown to be only at very high levels.

There’s a golden but ignored rule in economics: “Competition (as opposed to central planning) generally improves the overall welfare of society…”. This is the bit we hear all the time. Market fundamentalists harp on about it forever. But the bit they ignore is the rest which is “..as long as the winners compensate the losers”. That’s usually left out of conservative election pitches! In truth, the first part is often ignored or underplayed by left wing lobbyists.

Another fairly fundamental point is that people look at tax as a zero sum game, a simple take from Peter, give to Paul. It’s actually way more complex on a macro basis. Fiscal multipliers = a £1 of spending may actually yield more than a £1 in revenue. It depends where it’s spent and who receives it of course, just as above in discussing tax cuts. If a new building project all goes to foreign capital & labour it won’t do much. If a tax cut is saved or spent abroad it won’t do much.

Also, Classical Economics assumes for all intents and purposes a barter economy. Money and the banking system, and its capacity to create money - are believe it or not - not part of traditional classical economics. But money and banking are fundamental to the real economy. Where does money come from? It comes from (a) banks lending more than they call back from borrowers, and (b) governments running deficits. Both cause money supply to increase. Governments running surpluses takes money out of the circular flow of income, reducing money supply. If banks’ net lending falls the same happens. If both happen at the same time money supply definitely falls (ignore foreign trade here – though most of the countries we are looking at here run deficits, strengthening this point). If money supply falls without a corresponding rise in the velocity of money (i.e., the frequency at which it is spent) the effect is contractionary in the economy. It’s like taking air out of a room.

Milton Friedman (no socialist!) contended that the great depression was caused by a failure to increase money supply when it was needed. He was partly right. Keynes – who preceded Friedman – said though that relying (only) on increasing money supply to secure growth was like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt! (I love that line btw). An economy has a productive capacity – if everyone of working age makes as much as he is capable X amount of goods and services can be made. If there is not enough money to buy X (again, ignore the foreign sector for simplicity) you have unemployment. If there is more money sloshing around than is needed to buy X, you have inflation. So why is tax rel;evant here? Governments can help reduce unemploymenbt by running deficits, and can help fight inflation by running surpluses. So taxation is a generally important macro tool, not just a simple “take from Peter give to Paul” / “taxes cover spending” argument. In fact, if you think about it, spending must actually take place before taxation, not the other way around. In short, there actually IS a magic money tree.

This is why tax isn’t as simple a discussion as many made out 

[Real ale Madrid]

Has somebody got thick (other than dahamsta, I mean)?

Well you did - with your "Dear Leader" jibe.

I don't want to comment on Stu directly because its not my place to do so - plus we've clashed here on this repeatedly so I'm biased.. But I will say I do share some of dahamsta's frustration when I see the type of person Trump is and what he stands for - and to be honest its disheartening to see people so vehemently in favor of him and defend him and his actions. What I have done is try to be balanced in my responses and above all not make it personal but as I've pointed out repeatedly the responses are not always in kind.

[DeLorean]

Well you did - with your "Dear Leader" jibe.

Hardly getting thick.


I don't want to comment on Stu directly because its not my place to do so - plus we've clashed here on this repeatedly so I'm biased.. But I will say I do share some of dahamsta's frustration when I see the type of person Trump is and what he stands for - and to be honest its disheartening to see people so vehemently in favor of him and defend him and his actions. What I have done is try to be balanced in my responses and above all not make it personal but as I've pointed out repeatedly the responses are not always in kind.

All of that is fair enough, you're entitled to feel whatever way you feel. Others don't need to feel the same way though, or be ashamed of themselves because they don't feel the same.
To be honest, I think Stu has put a lot of points to dahamsta that he can't actually refute, so it's convenient for him to play the 'I'm not engaging' card, and portray himself as protector of the "gullible and uneducated". Give me a break.

[tetsujin1979]

Hardly getting thick
You associated him with the North Korean dictatorship, how is that not getting thick?

[dahamsta]

I haven't engaged with either of the Trumpists in this thread in quite some time. Painting my single-sentence reply to SkuStu a couple of pages back is disingenuous (the post after that wasn't directed at him). I will continue to post facts and information in the way I have recently. I think all bar one have been sourced, by other people. Sources are sources as long as they're factual, where they're posted is irrelevant.

I think any supporter of Trump should be ashamed of themselves at this point, the evidence against him is enormous. He is a disgusting, abhorrent individual that is destroying America, and by extension harming the world, both physically (climate) and politically (rise of fascism). I don't know what SkuStu is like in person, and never had a problem with him up until recently, but he has either drunk the Kool-aid, or is trolling. Either way, I see no value in engaging.

I've said my piece now, I'll leave it there.

[DeLorean]

You associated him with the North Korean dictatorship, how is that not getting thick?

It was a lighthearted double meaning, given dahamsta's lack of tolerance for alternative views on this topic, Stu's in this case, and also that he is in fact our leader on here. I don't actually think he's as bad as Kim Jong. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

P.S. You're wanted on the Pun Thread, and have been for some time. :)

[SkStu]

Thanks Del for the support on this but, look, DaHamsta, RAM and everyone else put out by my posts - I really don't want or mean to be a problem in all of this. For the most part, I thought I was contributing positively and fairly. I wanted to provide an alternate viewpoint and tried to be fairly open to at least listening and reflecting along the way. I've also stated many times on here that i don't tend to defend Trump the person, nor do i agree with every position/policy he takes. But I do agree with more than i disagree with. Added to that, I think he has been treated pretty unfairly by the establishment politicos and media to the extent that, from day one, he hasn't been given a fair shot at governing to the extent his predecessors have. And where I have defended from that perspective or in terms of policies i agree with, i have tried to be productive in my conversations and as i said just offer another perspective.

I don't think I deserve, at all, the type of ire that you have for me but, that said, it might be better for me to stay away from this thread in future and allow you to have this thread be whatever it is you want it to be. This is not me pouting or sulking or taking my ball and going home but I could do with avoiding the type of stuff in the last few messages from DaH about my character. And me stepping away from this voluntarily is something i can control to prevent that.

[samhaydenjr]

Thanks Del for the support on this but, look, DaHamsta, RAM and everyone else put out by my posts - I really don't want or mean to be a problem in all of this. For the most part, I thought I was contributing positively and fairly. I wanted to provide an alternate viewpoint and tried to be fairly open to at least listening and reflecting along the way. I've also stated many times on here that i don't tend to defend Trump the person, nor do i agree with every position/policy he takes. But I do agree with more than i disagree with. Added to that, I think he has been treated pretty unfairly by the establishment politicos and media to the extent that, from day one, he hasn't been given a fair shot at governing to the extent his predecessors have. And where I have defended from that perspective or in terms of policies i agree with, i have tried to be productive in my conversations and as i said just offer another perspective.

I don't think I deserve, at all, the type of ire that you have for me but, that said, it might be better for me to stay away from this thread in future and allow you to have this thread be whatever it is you want it to be. This is not me pouting or sulking or taking my ball and going home but I could do with avoiding the type of stuff in the last few messages from DaH about my character. And me stepping away from this voluntarily is something i can control to prevent that.

OK I want to come in here and say that perhaps everybody needs to take it down a notch - one of the main principles of debate on foot.ie has always been "attack the post, not the poster" and yes, I will agree that dahamsta has failed in this regard in his personal attacks on you - you should be able to make your point without being subject to insult, particularly from a moderator.

Now, on the other hand, there is a reason defending Trump can cause such anger (and yes this may run slightly counter to what I just said) - we consider him to be scum - and no, we don't need the New York Times to form this opinion for us - just our own eyes and ears tell us this:
- when two of his opening campaign speeches are probably the two most racist major political speeches since 1930s Germany (undocumented Mexican immigrants are a bunch of criminal, drug-dealing rapists and "Ban Muslims!")
- when he tries to minimize the actions of murderous Neo-Nazis
- when he implies that one of the (numerous) women who accuses him of assault is too ugly to rape
- when he's clearly funnelling taxpayer money towards his own businesses
- when he mocks somebody's physical disability
- when he abandoned the Kurds, after they defeated ISIS
- and my personal belief (although I recently found an article that might support it) - that The Wall may actually be a cash grab for his cronies
- etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

So I guess what I'm saying is Stu, you should be able to make your point without us losing our rag with you (we do have a responsibility to suck it up to allow for reasoned debate), but at the same time I will agree with dahamsta that you're going to have to seriously back up your viewpoint with proper facts and references to respectable sources - and no, there isn't an equivalence between a liberal media outlet which adheres to journalistic ethics like The New York Times and Conservative Activist media of the type Mark12345 sent me to earlier in this thread.

[dahamsta]

While I accept that my posts could be considered to be personal attacks, they're genuine opinions on what I consider to be bizarre and/or offensive behaviour. It's not "you're disgusting", it's "your behaviour disgusts me". There's a difference, IMHO.

I've stated elsewhere, including on posts in the mod forum discussing SkuStu's recent behaviour here, that I never had a problem with him before this thread. However the simple fact of the matter is that his beliefs and/or behaviours on this subject - I'm still not sure if it's belief or trolling - are offensive to me both as a person (not based in reality, supportive of a wannabe dictator and party) and a moderator (disruptive, rulebreaking). And while that can be construed as an insult, I consider it a heartfelt opinion. I'm not going to apologise, because it would be a "if you were offended, I'm sorry" apology, and we all know that's not an apology.

I think SkuStu is the more sensible of the pair, and that perhaps he's just misguided. But the simple fact of the matter is that the arguments are not genuine or factual. Belief does not count, this isn't a religious forum, or The_Donald. The facts are against Trump and the GOP, there is no credible evidence to support them. Even Trump and the GOP know that, which is why they don't allow evidence or facts.

The simple answer is to moderate this thread according to the rules, but that will create accusations of bias because I will forbid dodgy sources, and they will inevitably be banned. I'm not sure where to go from here TBH. Perhaps I should just avoid the thread, but I don't like this nonsense going unchecked.

[Closed Account 2]

Trump's record on the military, veterans, and military families


• ⁠Russia took control of the main U.S. military facility in Syria abandoned on Trump’s orders. Russia now owns the airstrip we built. •

I don't think that many US citizens will be disappointed with the, admittedly incomplete, withdrawal from Syria. What was the US going to achieve there, regime change? It didn't work out too well in Iraq, and some of the rebels in Syria are worse than you think in terms of women rights, minority rights etc. If you replace tyranny with anarchy you achieve nothing.




⁠Trump sent thousands of American troops to defend the oil assets of the country that perpetrated 9/11.

I agree that this isn't great, but this has been the policy for generations. Bush didn't go after them when he should have and Obama and Democratic senator encouraged the appalling public suppression on the 9/11 inquiry in 2016. I think it's disingenuous to portray a cosy relationship with that country as a uniquely Trump-driven policy.



• ⁠On July 31, 2019, Trump ordered the Navy rescind medals to prosecutors who were prosecuted war criminals

Prosecutors who were "prosecuted war criminals", who writes this gibberish? That's arguably as incoherent as some of his tweets. Does the "author" mean prosecutors were themselves alleged war criminals? Were they found guilty? Do tell ?

[Real ale Madrid]

Prosecutors who were "prosecuted war criminals", who writes this gibberish? That's arguably as incoherent as some of his tweets. Does the "author" mean prosecutors were themselves alleged war criminals? Were they found guilty? Do tell ?

All you have to do is literally copy and paste into google to get the background info. You will get multiple hits that all say the same thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/trump-navy-seal-war-crimes.html


WASHINGTON — President Trump intervened Tuesday once again on behalf of a Navy SEAL who was charged but acquitted of war crimes in the death of a captured Islamic State fighter in Iraq, ordering the military to punish the prosecutors who tried the case in the first place.

Mr. Trump angrily lashed out at the Navy for awarding commendations to prosecutors in the murder trial of Edward Gallagher, a former special operations chief, and he publicly instructed Pentagon officials to strip them of the medals. His announcement was a remarkable rebuke by a president of his own Navy leadership.

[Closed Account 2]

I don't think they say the "same" thing. Someone being prosecuted for war crimes is quite different to someone prosecuting war criminals, no?

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't think they say the "same" thing. Someone being prosecuted for war crimes is quite different to someone prosecuting war criminals, no?

Its a typo - should say : • ⁠On July 31, 2019, Trump ordered the Navy rescind medals to prosecutors who prosecuted war criminals.

[Closed Account 2]

Well when a typo inherently changes the meaning of the sentence you start to doubt the credibility of the source.

[samhaydenjr]

We are not, given your posts in this thread. I don't know if you believe what you're saying or if you're just having a little fun, but I won't be conversing with you on these issues. It's not funny. It's dangerous, and I'm not engaging with it bar continuing to post facts and information in the hope that the gullible and/or uneducated won't follow your lead. You should be ashamed of your beliefs and/or actions. They are destroying society and they disgust me.


While I accept that my posts could be considered to be personal attacks, they're genuine opinions on what I consider to be bizarre and/or offensive behaviour. It's not "you're disgusting", it's "your behaviour disgusts me". There's a difference, IMHO.

I've stated elsewhere, including on posts in the mod forum discussing SkuStu's recent behaviour here, that I never had a problem with him before this thread. However the simple fact of the matter is that his beliefs and/or behaviours on this subject - I'm still not sure if it's belief or trolling - are offensive to me both as a person (not based in reality, supportive of a wannabe dictator and party) and a moderator (disruptive, rulebreaking). And while that can be construed as an insult, I consider it a heartfelt opinion. I'm not going to apologise, because it would be a "if you were offended, I'm sorry" apology, and we all know that's not an apology.

I think SkuStu is the more sensible of the pair, and that perhaps he's just misguided. But the simple fact of the matter is that the arguments are not genuine or factual. Belief does not count, this isn't a religious forum, or The_Donald. The facts are against Trump and the GOP, there is no credible evidence to support them. Even Trump and the GOP know that, which is why they don't allow evidence or facts.

The simple answer is to moderate this thread according to the rules, but that will create accusations of bias because I will forbid dodgy sources, and they will inevitably be banned. I'm not sure where to go from here TBH. Perhaps I should just avoid the thread, but I don't like this nonsense going unchecked.

When you say that Stu's views disgust you, it might not be as bad as saying Stu disgusts you, but it's still well beyond what should be acceptable. Listen, one of the reasons I like foot.ie because it's a little haven from the horrors that passes for debate elsewhere on the internet - even on this thread, while things can get understandably testy, we should still try to take each other's views at face value and debate them on their merits without demeaning their proponents.

As regards where to go in terms of sources, I'm not completely familiar with the rules but I think you have two choices:
1. Clearly define for those who take on a more Conservative/right-wing opinion what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable sources: Fox News? The Washington Times? Breitbart? Infowars? The Republican Party? The Wall Street Journal? Conservative activist media?
2. Let them use whatever sources they want and face the consequences if it's not reasonable

[Real ale Madrid]

When you say that Stu's views disgust you, it might not be as bad as saying Stu disgusts you, but it's still well beyond what should be acceptable.

Do you not think Trump is a disgusting person?

[DeLorean]

Sam already said he considers Trump to be scum, and even gave a list of reasons as to why.

[Real ale Madrid]

Sam already said he considers Trump to be scum, and even gave a list of reasons as to why.

Fair enough missed that.

I just don't understand the mentality of people
1. Defending this scumbag
2. Defending the right of others to defend said scumbag.

As soon as someone overreacts (a little) the place is suddenly populated with people having a go

Where were you and Sam when Trump defenders would constantly rubbish people's views that don't agree with their world view.

Paraphrasing here but examples include:


'Oh man you cannot be serious right now'

You gotta engage more honestly.

Go find a safe space if you are not intelligent enough to converse honestly.

Do you not realise how close minded that makes you look!


Again, I'm not saying people are not entitled to their views. They are. But defend a 'scumbag' and expect a reaction from others that is in line with the opposite viewpoint. Why you would openly defend him is beyond me anyway.

[DeLorean]

As soon as someone overreacts (a little) the place is suddenly populated with people having a go

It's a mere two posters suggesting dahamsta could tone down the personal nature of his posts to/about Stu. Let's not exaggerate.



Where were you and Sam when Trump defenders would constantly rubbish people's views that don't agree with their world view.

Just late to the thread, RAM. Sorry about that, next time I see somebody rubbishing your views, I'll jump straight in. :D

[Real ale Madrid]

George Papadopoulos
Rick Gates
Michael Flynn
Michael Cohen
Paul Manafort

and now Roger Stone
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/feb/20/roger-stone-sentenced-democrats-debate-bloomberg-trump

How do all these associates of Trump find themselves in trouble with the law. He must be the unluckiest President in history.

[osarusan]

He really is just a weirdo with his incoherent stream of consciousness rants.


“How bad were the Academy Awards this year?” Trump asked a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The crowd responded with loud boos.

“The winner is a movie from South Korea, what the hell was that all about?” Trump asked. “We got enough problems with South Korea with trade and on top of it, they give them the best movie of the year.”

Parasite made Oscars history as the first film not in English to win best picture. The capitalist satire also won awards for best director, best original screenplay and best international film.

“Was it good? I don’t know. I’m looking for, like – can we get like Gone With The Wind back, please?” Trump said, to loud cheers.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/20/trump-parasite-oscar-south-korea

[Real ale Madrid]

Interesting site here if you wish to keep track of the ever complicated Democratic Primaries.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

[samhaydenjr]

Fair enough missed that.

I just don't understand the mentality of people
1. Defending this scumbag
2. Defending the right of others to defend said scumbag.

I think part of what I said to Stu was explaining that yes, given how a lot of us see Trump, it is difficult for us to fathom how any decent, conscientious person could defend him. And sure, it's fair to ask that of his defenders - do they just not see what we see? Or is it just not a big deal to them? But to say Stu's actions are disgusting was beyond what I think should be acceptable on this site - what are we? YBIG? (I don't go to YBIG, but I've heard it's a toxic post-apocalyptic wasteland)


Where were you and Sam when Trump defenders would constantly rubbish people's views that don't agree with their world view.

After the abandonment of the Kurds, I actually wasn't in the mood for debating on this thread for a while.

[dahamsta]

He really is just a weirdo with his incoherent stream of consciousness rants.

There's loads of weirdos and racists and homophobes and criminals out there. The problem is that this one has the approval of a huge number of Americans.

America is broken.

[osarusan]

After South Carolina, Biden is back in it, Buttigieg is out of the race (along with Tom Steyer, who I didn't even know was in the race). Sanders take a hit for the first time, and Warren fails to do much, but seems to have targeted the Super Tuesday states more than South Carolina.

[osarusan]

Klobuchar drops out, endorses Biden, as does Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke.

The Anti-Bernie machine is kicking into action.

[dahamsta]

My thought exactly. Spite endorsements.

[Real ale Madrid]

I see Biden has raced ahead in the FiveThirtyEight Projection as a result ( well its actually made "No majority" the outright leader ).

Bit of desperation about the whole thing - if Bernie has a good night tonight they don't have many cards left to play.

[osarusan]

Warren must be close to dropping out now, terrible results for her, leaving just Biden and Sanders. I wonder will Warren endorse Sanders after the sniping she did at him during the campaign.

[backstothewall]

I see Biden has raced ahead in the FiveThirtyEight Projection as a result ( well its actually made "No majority" the outright leader ).

Bit of desperation about the whole thing - if Bernie has a good night tonight they don't have many cards left to play.

Narrator: "Bernie didn't have a good night".

[Real ale Madrid]

Warren must be close to dropping out now, terrible results for her, leaving just Biden and Sanders. I wonder will Warren endorse Sanders after the sniping she did at him during the campaign.

I suspect that this is Sanders' last chance at this stage - can't see her doing it myself in time - although losing Mass. last night was surely the final nail.


Narrator: "Bernie didn't have a good night".

Biden won in States he didn't even canvass in. I guess Bernie is just too scary for your average American.

Biden was 2/1 on Sunday to win the nomination - 2/7 today.

T-shirt idea for Bloomberg :

"I spent $500m and all I got was a lousy Delegate from American Samoa"