America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,010 comments
  • 1,484,736 views
PocketZeven
It's funny how the media flip the script.

To be fair. Nobody is accusing Trump of abusing power with his affairs.
Click to expand...

I don't remember hearing about Trump having an affair with or harassing a subordinate. But I might be misremembering.
 
Danoff
I don't remember hearing about Trump having an affair with or harassing a subordinate. But I might be misremembering.
Click to expand...

He did have multiple affairs while also promising said affair, that they would appear on celebrity apprentice. He has multiple accusations of sexual assault, he was recorded saying he could grab women by the pussy, because he was a famous star and he walked in dressingrooms of a beauty contest without concent to name a few.

One could accuse him of abuse of power on these women, couldnt they?
What Bill did was stupid, what Hillary stated is even more stupid, but to be honest the affair with Lewinsky, was widely reported as concensual. She wasnt harrased or sexually assaulted/intimidated. The other women who ellegedly were raped by Bill are a whole other story though. I am curious if Hillary admits if that was abuse of power?
 
Danoff
I don't remember hearing about Trump having an affair with or harassing a subordinate. But I might be misremembering.
Click to expand...

He allegedly tried to get Playboy to photograph some of his female employees (Wayne Barrett, 1991), the claim of his affair (and illegitimate child) with a housekeeper is still on the table, and several teen models contracted to his pageants have claimed that he 'accidentally' walked in on them while they were dressing. A man who, to paraphrase his own words, claims you can grab women in any way you want leaves himself open to those kinds of accusations but the sheer number of claims down the years is surely a warning sign to people.

Anyway, he's got other issues today - he's going to pay Elizabeth Warren a million dollars.
 
PocketZeven
He did have multiple affairs while also promising said affair, that they would appear on celebrity apprentice. He has multiple accusations of sexual assault, he was recorded saying he could grab women by the pussy, because he was a famous star and he walked in dressingrooms of a beauty contest without concent to name a few.

One could accuse him of abuse of power on these women, couldnt they?
Click to expand...

Uh.... I dunno. That's a tough one. Abuse of power and sexual harassment is not the same thing. Promising a spot on a TV show is your best argument.

PocketZeven
What Bill did was stupid, what Hillary stated is even more stupid, but to be honest the affair with Lewinsky, was widely reported as concensual. She wasnt harrased or sexually assaulted/intimidated. The other women who ellegedly were raped by Bill are a whole other story though. I am curious if Hillary admits if that was abuse of power?
Click to expand...

There are steps that an employer is supposed to go through to disclose a workplace relationship with a subordinate. Really Bill should have been removed from being a direct line supervisor, which is pretty much impossible for the president (who is a direct line supervisor for all of the executive branch). I'm pretty sure it's not possible for Bill and Lewinsky to have had a secret consensual workplace relationship while she was employed by him without it having been considered an abuse of power.

Your best argument here is probably to find out whether Lewinsky considers(ed) it sexual harassment. If she doesn't that's a decent avenue.

TenEightyOne
He allegedly tried to get Playboy to photograph some of his female employees (Wayne Barrett, 1991)
Click to expand...

Like... against their will? Or they just wanted to be in Playboy?

TenEightyOne
the claim of his affair (and illegitimate child) with a housekeeper is still on the table,
Click to expand...

That's probably legit employer/employee sexual harassment if it's real.
 
Danoff
Uh.... I dunno. That's a tough one. Abuse of power and sexual harassment is not the same thing. Promising a spot on a TV show is your best argument.



There are steps that an employer is supposed to go through to disclose a workplace relationship with a subordinate. Really Bill should have been removed from being a direct line supervisor, which is pretty much impossible for the president (who is a direct line supervisor for all of the executive branch). I'm pretty sure it's not possible for Bill and Lewinsky to have had a secret consensual workplace relationship while she was employed by him without it having been considered an abuse of power.

Your best argument here is probably to find out whether Lewinsky considers(ed) it sexual harassment. If she doesn't that's a decent avenue.



Like... against their will? Or they just wanted to be in Playboy?



That's probably legit employer/employee sexual harassment if it's real.
Click to expand...

You can say the same for Lewinsky. I do agree the claim perhaps is legit in her mind, but not enough to prove she was under pressure and started the affair not in her free will. This has been documented. So I am not so sure if it was abuse of power rather then somebody being attracted to a person of power. There is a thin line.

TenEightyOne
Anyway, he's got other issues today - he's going to pay Elizabeth Warren a million dollars.
Click to expand...

How can this guy keep getting away with all these public lies. I understand politicians lie, but Trump takes it to:
 
PocketZeven
You can say the same for Lewinsky. I do agree the claim perhaps is legit in her mind, but not enough to prove she was under pressure and started the affair not in her free will. This has been documented. So I am not so sure if it was abuse of power rather then somebody being attracted to a person of power. There is a thin line.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing rape with workplace sexual harassment.
 
PocketZeven
It's funny how the media flip the script.

To be fair. Nobody is accusing Trump of abusing power with his affairs.
Click to expand...
Where is the media flipping the script? They've been hounding him for months about all sorts of things he's done, whether he brought them on himself or not. This is Hillary opening her mouth, likely because she got tired of people bringing up slick Willy with the recent topic of sexual abuse & harassment. The Democratic Party has distanced themselves from her after she threw them under the bus anyway, so it's not like whatever she says is going to cause concern to the political world.
 
McLaren
Where is the media flipping the script? They've been hounding him for months about all sorts of things he's done, whether he brought them on himself or not. This is Hillary opening her mouth, likely because she got tired of people bringing up slick Willy with the recent topic of sexual abuse & harassment. The Democratic Party has distanced themselves from her after she threw them under the bus anyway, so it's not like whatever she says is going to cause concern to the political world.
Click to expand...

Not defending Hillary here. I was referencing how serious it is when somebody like hillary says something like this it seems a bigger deal then what Trump is saying on a daily basis.
 
PocketZeven
Not defending Hillary here. I was referencing how serious it is when somebody like hillary says something like this it seems a bigger deal then what Trump is saying on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
I haven't really seen that at all. My last sentence sort of correlates why; she's a bit of a political outcast right now so she's not really on anyone's radar, and she's talking about an issue that happened 20 years ago. Even Lewinsky has pretty much stopped bringing it back out into the public spotlight, although she did just yesterday (unsurprisingly) disagree with Hillary's defense of Bill as not an abuse of power.
 
Joey D
I'm glad the Trump administration is continuing the trend of spending money like it's water because virtually no one in government understands fiscal responsibility.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/us-...illion-in-fiscal-2018-as-spending-surges.html

I mean Jesus tap-dancing Christ, a $779 billion deficit?
Click to expand...


Ooooh... fine print "Spending jumped, and revenue only increased slightly following the GOP tax cuts."

Wait wait, I thought we were non-stop talking about how to "pay" for the tax cuts. Tax hikes are always talked about in terms of how much extra revenue they'll bring in, and tax cuts are always talked about in terms of how much revenue they'll cost. But it's not always so intuitive.

Nevermind, next time it'll be the same thing.
 
DDastardly00
It's not a "route", I asked an honest question which you clearly are evading, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is a route. It's the "prove to me you're not a child molester" route. It's a way of delegitimatizing your opponent with the suggestion they are getting emotional. Don't go that route.
 
Well, I mean. Cut taxes for people who can afford to pay, but more taxes for those that can't, all while dumping more and more of that revenue into an already bloated, wasteful, excessive, mostly unaccountable defense budget and the things will have a tendency to happen.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
Yeah it is a route. It's the "prove to me you're not a child molester" route. It's a way of delegitimatizing your opponent with the suggestion they are getting emotional. Don't go that route.
Click to expand...

If that's your perspective than so be it. I asked a simple honest question and you just got defensive and won't answer it, that's my perspective. Like I said, I'm sure you have your reasons....carry on.
 
Rallywagon
Well, I mean. Cut taxes for people who can afford to pay, but more axes for those that can't, all while dumping more and more of that revenue into an already bloated, wasteful, excessive, mostly unaccountable defense budget and the things will have a tendency to happen.
Click to expand...

Halliburton & the lords of war vs education
 
Danoff
Ooooh... fine print "Spending jumped, and revenue only increased slightly following the GOP tax cuts."

Wait wait, I thought we were non-stop talking about how to "pay" for the tax cuts. Tax hikes are always talked about in terms of how much extra revenue they'll bring in, and tax cuts are always talked about in terms of how much revenue they'll cost. But it's not always so intuitive.

Nevermind, next time it'll be the same thing.
Click to expand...

Paying for tax cuts should be easy, at least on the surface. Just quit spending money and make the government smaller. We added what? $50 billion extra in defense spending when there really wasn't a need. We also added nearly $3 billion in Homeland Security funding and $4.4 billion for Veteran Affairs. To me, that seems rather excessive.

Scale back the military, invest in technology that actually secures the border instead of whatever the hell Homeland Security does, and also rework things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all those other handout programs. Then give those savings back to the taxpayer so they can have their money, that they earned, instead of having it stolen from them.

The longer I'm alive, the more I subscribe to the belief that the best way to have a strong economy is to let people have money. I know if I got more in my paycheck, I'd buy more things and probably invest more too. But since the government likes its share, I don't get all the money I'm working for.

Rallywagon
Well, I mean. Cut taxes for people who can afford to pay, but more axes for those that can't, all while dumping more and more of that revenue into an already bloated, wasteful, excessive, mostly unaccountable defense budget and the things will have a tendency to happen.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is that people that can afford to pay often pay more than their fair share. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I get repeatedly slammed with a tax bill causing me to pay more than my fair share in taxes. @Danoff put together a thread explaining all of it and it was pretty enlightening to me. I just thought I was bad at accounting, but really because of my tax bracket, I end up paying more than I probably should.
 
Danoff
Ooooh... fine print "Spending jumped, and revenue only increased slightly following the GOP tax cuts."

Wait wait, I thought we were non-stop talking about how to "pay" for the tax cuts. Tax hikes are always talked about in terms of how much extra revenue they'll bring in, and tax cuts are always talked about in terms of how much revenue they'll cost. But it's not always so intuitive.

Nevermind, next time it'll be the same thing.
Click to expand...

Still don’t change the fact that “conservatives” think they know how to balance budgets (which is why they can’t pass an affordable healthcare bill). I’d rather have “liberals” spend it on knowledge (which is the most conservative thing that can be done).

People that can afford to pay their fair share can also lobby for loophole laws.
 
the_boy
(which is why they can’t pass an affordable healthcare bill)
Click to expand...
Not true. Rather than look at one option (universal health care) why not try to look at the other available options that would help keep costs down. I agree that jacking up the prices of common pills by 5000% isn't going to do anyone any good but at the other end of the spectrum, trying to get the government to pay for everything is just going to raise costs by increasing taxes.

Both solutions are not that good in the long run, but why not try and pass laws that would cut the fraud down and then see how much cheaper health care will be for everyone.
 
RIP Paul Allen, you contributions made the world a better place. Your impact on technology, medical science, space travel, the arts and more made you an even better person. You are loved by many and your work will live on long after your body is laid to rest. You are an example of how people should live their lives and you inspired so many others in such a significant, great way. You will not be forgotten, thank you everything.
 
DDastardly00
If that's your perspective than so be it. I asked a simple honest question and you just got defensive and won't answer it, that's my perspective. Like I said, I'm sure you have your reasons....carry on.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You ask the "prove you're not a child molester" type question and now because I didn't answer it, I'm being defensive and I have "reasons" for not answering it. That's the route I'm talking about.
 
Joey D
Paying for tax cuts should be easy, at least on the surface. Just quit spending money and make the government smaller. We added what? $50 billion extra in defense spending when there really wasn't a need. We also added nearly $3 billion in Homeland Security funding and $4.4 billion for Veteran Affairs. To me, that seems rather excessive.

Scale back the military, invest in technology that actually secures the border instead of whatever the hell Homeland Security does, and also rework things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all those other handout programs. Then give those savings back to the taxpayer so they can have their money, that they earned, instead of having it stolen from them.

The longer I'm alive, the more I subscribe to the belief that the best way to have a strong economy is to let people have money. I know if I got more in my paycheck, I'd buy more things and probably invest more too. But since the government likes its share, I don't get all the money I'm working for.



The unfortunate thing is that people that can afford to pay often pay more than their fair share. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I get repeatedly slammed with a tax bill causing me to pay more than my fair share in taxes. @Danoff put together a thread explaining all of it and it was pretty enlightening to me. I just thought I was bad at accounting, but really because of my tax bracket, I end up paying more than I probably should.
Click to expand...
Unless you are a large corporation, or making large amounts of money off the interest your even larger amount of money makes you, then you are not the one I mean when I say tax breaks. Since the Reagan era and the idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts for large corps and the "1%" have been steadily growing and the burden ever growing on the bottom 50% either in the form of more taxes or diminished social programs (ie: reduction in public schools and programs, reduction or diminished public parks, reduction in pay for all levels of civic/local gov employment (non-political), etc) have been steadily growing.
Now. I certainly am no economist (my wife on the other hand is. I often discuss finance and economics with her and still end up bewildered by it all, insanely complex just to be complex) it just seems to me that letting rich people and their corporate entities horde all of the money is not going to be as good on the economy as said corporation paying their base employees a wage above the poverty line. Anyone who is willing to work 40 hours a week, no matter the job, should not have to also rely on welfare. Call me a communist for it if you want. But that is my belief. It's the same idea behind a foundation for a house. Make it cheap and of low quality and everything else above will be shakey and ready to crumble. But start with a well build, sturdy foundation and you can build a skyscraper. The foundation of this country seemed to be pretty solid until Reaganomics...
 
Rallywagon
Unless you are a large corporation, or making large amounts of money off the interest your even larger amount of money makes you, then you are not the one I mean when I say tax breaks. Since the Reagan era and the idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts for large corps and the "1%" have been steadily growing and the burden ever growing on the bottom 50% either in the form of more taxes or diminished social programs (ie: reduction in public schools and programs, reduction or diminished public parks, reduction in pay for all levels of civic/local gov employment (non-political), etc) have been steadily growing.
Now. I certainly am no economist (my wife on the other hand is. I often discuss finance and economics with her and still end up bewildered by it all, insanely complex just to be complex) it just seems to me that letting rich people and their corporate entities horde all of the money is not going to be as good on the economy as said corporation paying their base employees a wage above the poverty line. Anyone who is willing to work 40 hours a week, no matter the job, should not have to also rely on welfare. Call me a communist for it if you want. But that is my belief. It's the same idea behind a foundation for a house. Make it cheap and of low quality and everything else above will be shakey and ready to crumble. But start with a well build, sturdy foundation and you can build a skyscraper. The foundation of this country seemed to be pretty solid until Reaganomics...
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence to support these positions?
 
Sure. And I'll share, but I also dont doubt that there are contradictory evidence out there in this "post modern" world. So bare in mind, this is my opinion on the matter based off the evidence I have collected.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/08/what-we-learned-from-reagans-tax-cuts/

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-the-house-republican-tax-plan-would-hurt-teachers-6335656

https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...christmas-just-watch-out-pot-holes/972885001/

(This downloads a pdf) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0ibGKyzekFS4qg7hlf6LrH&cshid=1539696546854

https://equitablegrowth.org/the-imp...age-to-boost-broad-based-u-s-economic-growth/

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...e-inequality-and-the-strength-of-our-economy/

I mean. There is way more to my opinion than just some articles but I cant really cite life experience. I suppose I could take pictures of our roads and over passes. Share discussions with my wife(entrepreneur business degree, decades of experience handling multi billion dollar budgets for state governments, and other such stuff I have no head for) or cousin and his wife (teachers).Definitely can cite tons and tons more articles on the whole infrastructure thing.
But, at the end of the day, I can also do a quick google search switching up a few keywords such as "help" to "harm" or some such nonsense and come up with a counter point. But these are my opinions on the matter based off nearly 40 years of living, watching, learning and discussing.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back