Donald John Trump: The 2nd Greatest President of the USA (by volume)

[w1z4rd]

Allegedly:

View attachment 413474

Why are you comparing an exit speech with an inauguration speech? False equivalency much?

 

[2023]

Love how Obama wears a blue tie, while Trump a red one.

 

[C4Cat]

Allegedly:

View attachment 413474

It's the 'royal' We, he was actually talking about himself as usual...

 

[Cray]

Allegedly:

View attachment 413474

http://www.snopes.com/is-barack-obama-more-self-referential-than-donald-trump/

Before we get to the numbers, we would like to point out that these two speeches are not really comparable. Trump's inaugural address clocked in at about 16 minutes, whereas Obama's farewell address was more than 50 minutes long, making it unsurprising that Obama used more words (and more references to himself) during his speech

Self-references in Obama's inaugural speeches.

In 2009, Obama used the word "I" 3 times during his speech, and never used "me," "I've" or "I'm." In 2013, Obama used the word "I" twice, and never used "me," "I've" or "I'm." His "we" count in both speeches was more than sixty.

A comparison of the inaugural addresses delivered by both Obama and Trump shows the number of self-references was nearly identical

 

[konfab]

How funny is it that Jack Ryan, a fictional character, has better ethics and morals than the 45th president of the United States of America?

Wait, that's not funny, that's terrifying.

Such a deep insight. A fictional character you picked **magically** has qualities that you approve of.

Really makes you think huh.

 

[Sinbad]

Such a deep insight. A fictional character you picked **magically** has qualities that you approve of.

Really makes you think huh.

I picked him

 

[Garson007]

He doesn't have a plan. For anything. Just vague promises that his idiot supporters are willing to fall for time and time again.

It's a little bizarre that this is the criticism. It can only make me think that some people really don't know what leadership is.

Trump is setting goals he hopes to achieve. He will not be achieving them, his staff will try to.

 

[BeerIsNotGood...]

Even the Democrats had lying politicians......remember old bill Clinton and his he did not have sexually relations comment ?

Don't forget precious Hillary

 

[cerebus]

It's a little bizarre that this is the criticism. It can only make me think that some people really don't know what leadership is.

Trump is setting goals he hopes to achieve. He will not be achieving them, his staff will try to.

No, he's making very vocal promises that are basically fairy dust, and his staff are desperately trying to manage expectations. Unless he really can come up with a healthcare plan that offers universal coverage, in which case, we should all give him due credit when it happens; otherwise, he's just peddling false hope to desperate people.

 

[Mach III]

It's a little bizarre that this is the criticism. It can only make me think that some people really don't know what leadership is.

Trump is setting goals he hopes to achieve. He will not be achieving them, his staff will try to.

The only goal, that is visible, is to descale government, and to descale regulations on businesses.

And that is saying farewell to so called Democracy, and welcome to the arena of Plutocracy.

While everyone is scrambling to make an opinion, the Billionaires are laughing their arses off.

 

[Garson007]

The only goal, that is visible, is to descale government, and to descale regulations on businesses.

As a Federalist, both these things are good things for democracy.

And that is saying farewell to so called Democracy, and welcome to the arena of Plutocracy.

You're incredibly naive, if you think we live in a functioning democracy today. As long as the people govern themselves, I do not care what you call it.

While everyone is scrambling to make an opinion, the Billionaires are laughing their arses off.

Yeah, because most Billionaires didn't write in the loopholes in the tax system.

 

[Mach III]

As a Federalist, both these things are good things for democracy.

And what of the people that are not of such cults (federalism)? That's funny, because federalism seems as though it is about a Government in unity; yet this campaign is also about stifling globalism.

And isn't it antithetical to be of those beliefs, but to descale Government? Isn't federalism about more Government??

You're incredibly naive, if you think we live in a functioning democracy today. As long as the people govern themselves, I do not care what you call it.

That is very funny, because I did not say anything of the sorts

If I had to say something of the sorts, it would be that the Democracy wasn't functioning because of the interest of the plutocrats, and now the plutocrats have full control. So the dysfunctional system that you are trying to articulate, is now in melt down.

Also, what is strange is that people are not Governing themselves. The majority of the USA did not, and does not want Trump as their President.

Yeah, because most Billionaires didn't write in the loopholes in the tax system.

I don't understand this bit... Don't get the joke... Vague...

 

[Garson007]

And what of the people that are not of such cults (federalism)?

:erm: You do realise, federalism is about giving people more choice on a local level - not less?

That's funny, because federalism seems as though it is about a Government in unity; yet this campaign is also about stifling globalism.

You're mixing up domestic and foreign policy. These two operate in different worlds (no matter how much liberals want to reject the concept). Foreign policy operates in a system built on anarchy. Domestic policy works in a system governed by the constitution (or whatever).

And isn't it antithetical to be of those beliefs, but to descale Government? Isn't federalism about more Government??

No. The Federal government should only concern itself with foreign policy and domestic policy when it comes to distributing taxes between the states and initiating visionary or infrastructural projects.

That is very funny, because I did not say anything of the sorts

If I had to say something of the sorts, it would be that the Democracy wasn't functioning because of the interest of the plutocrats, and now the plutocrats have full control. So the dysfunctional system that you are trying to articulate, is now in melt down.

Also, what is strange is that people are not Governing themselves. The majority of the USA did not, and does not want Trump as their President.

Every state gets to vote in their own Governor. The Governor, err, governs. The president exists for foreign policy reasons, as addressed above.

I don't understand this bit... Don't get the joke... Vague...

The US Tax Code is hundreds of pages long. The reason it is so long is because moneyed interests have lobbied for loopholes. Hence, the Billionares paid nothing to begin with.

 

[konfab]

The US Tax Code is hundreds of pages long. The reason it is so long is because moneyed interests have lobbied for loopholes. Hence, the Billionares paid nothing to begin with.

Cue the Russians:

Many advocates of the flat tax, particularly in America, argue that it sharpens the incentive to work. A progressive income tax, they claim, deters extra effort from society's best-paid (and therefore most productive) members. Russia's experience, however, suggests that the principal virtue of the flat tax is its simplicity. The government's revenues did not surge because Russians suddenly squared their shoulders and straightened their backs. Rather, Russia's tax system became easier to administer and easier to comply with.

America is not Russia. It has a functioning tax system, albeit a clumsy one, so has something to lose from uprooting its tax system and starting again. But the potential gains are not negligible. In a typical year, the IRS estimates that for every dollar it collects, another 19 or 20 cents is owed, but not paid. This shortfall amounted to between $312 billion and $353 billion in 2001. Small businesses fail to report about 30% of their earnings. Babysitters and gardeners fail to report 80%, says the IRS.

In part, the tax system is burdensome because people dodge it. Every loophole that is exploited must be plugged. Every blurry line that is crossed must be sharpened. But Messrs Owens and Hamilton worry that the tax-codifiers and the tax-dodgers are locked in a mutually destructive “arms race”. The code is made more complex, because of tax wheezes. More people then seek to avoid taxes. The best way to fight tax avoidance, then, is with simplicity.

http://www.economist.com/node/3860731

 

[access]

where was it said that there is no law that says you must pay tax, one of those zeitgeist films?

 

[Garson007]

No. The Federal government should only concern itself with foreign policy and domestic policy when it comes to distributing taxes between the states and initiating visionary or infrastructural projects.

To expand, this is the problem with the EU. In a lot of way it behaves like a federation, but it isn't one. It has focused on bringing together domestic policy (to the detriment of citizens), instead of bringing together foreign policy (to the detriment of the security of the entire union). It's like the anti-thesis of good Federation construction.

 

[Knyro]

Cue the Russians:


http://www.economist.com/node/3860731

I don't think it's that simple. As with every legal framework. Exceptions, special cases, changing situations etc. inevitably arise, which leads to laws for those exceptions, and new ones for the exceptions created by exceptions.

Having simple, straight-forward tax laws with no exceptions may not be optimal in the long run, even though loopholes don't exist.

 

[Rubberpigg]

"Trump, did more for women's health on his first full day as president.
He was able to get Millions of fat women on their feet marching throughout the world.
He definitely is a motivator.
He accomplished more in 1 day, than what Michelle Obama did in 8 years." - Alex Hansen

 

[konfab]

I don't think it's that simple. As with every legal framework. Exceptions, special cases, changing situations etc. inevitably arise, which leads to laws for those exceptions, and new ones for the exceptions created by exceptions.

Having simple, straight-forward tax laws with no exceptions may not be optimal in the long run, even though loopholes don't exist.

TBH, I would go one step more and remove the IRS and simply put a tiny tax every time money moves through a bank account. The only exception you would need to make is when you do a transaction that involves cash.

You would be able to boil the entire tax system down to two numbers: the transaction tax, and withdrawal/deposit tax. That would be my ideal system.

 

[theratman]

Allegedly:

View attachment 413474

Seriously...