# MAGA!



## mark_mark

man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


> man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


In a word...NOPE...!

Check out the new IC law change...

Did you REALLY think it would help us...

Come on now...

we are ONLY Uber drivers...

First to get there...last to get tipped...8>)

Oh yes... don't forget...

about the extra penny a mile bonus...

Guess you could say we got sumthin...8>)

Rakos









PS. On to year four... I'm still alive...


----------



## Jo3030

Not happening.


----------



## steveK2016

If most drivers are already paying little to no tax, how will more tax breaks help?


----------



## mark_mark

Trump will bring back factory jobs and we won’t have to drive drunks and entitled brats around. LOVE some Trump action! hear they are opening a Pepe factory in kekistan


----------



## Merc7186

mark_mark said:


> Trump will bring back factory jobs and we won't have to drive drunks and entitled brats around. LOVE some Trump action! hear they are opening a Pepe factory in kekistan


LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???

Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. The fact that you think factory jobs are coming back in such vast numbers that you won't have Uber anymore means you must have been part of the lowest common denominator minority that voted for him. Good Luck with that.


----------



## mark_mark

Merc7186 said:


> LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???
> 
> Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. The fact that you think factory jobs are coming back in such vast numbers that you won't have Uber anymore means you must have been part of the lowest common denominator minority that voted for him. Good Luck with that.


better than Hillary, at lease he is trying to stick to what we voted for. Pepe factory here I come! sloud work solid pay


----------



## Sacto Burbs

mark_mark said:


> better than Hillary, at lease he is trying to stick to what we voted for. Pepe factory here I come! sloud work solid pay


Unless it isn't unionizd


----------



## mark_mark

Sacto Burbs said:


> Unless it isn't unionizd


we are unionizd in Seattle


----------



## tohunt4me

mark_mark said:


> better than Hillary, at lease he is trying to stick to what we voted for. Pepe factory here I come! sloud work solid pay


Notice Christmas Tree in FAR RIGHT of Lower Picture . . .
LIBERALS WILL.MISS THIS BEING TRAINED TO ONLY SEE THE FAR LEFT VIEW . . .


----------



## Lunger

Merc7186 said:


> LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???
> 
> Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. ...


All economics is trickle down....

The flavor is Winning!


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Here is a biblical reference to a decorated "tree". - an idol.

Jeremiah 10.

Hear what the Lord says to you, people of Israel. 2 This is what the Lord says:

“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”


----------



## mark_mark

Merc7186 said:


> LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???
> 
> Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. The fact that you think factory jobs are coming back in such vast numbers that you won't have Uber anymore means you must have been part of the lowest common denominator minority that voted for him. Good Luck with that.


we will see, Uber an't really caring about drivers, they just want us to do Pool and trash our ride. Trump about to get into 5th gear and rock the Pepe out of jobs and keep us safe



tohunt4me said:


> Notice Christmas Tree in FAR RIGHT of Lower Picture . . .
> LIBERALS WILL.MISS THIS BEING TRAINED TO ONLY SEE THE FAR LEFT VIEW . . .


MAN! did we miss a bullet! we would be driving Uber in NKorea if she stole the show.


----------



## Merc7186

mark_mark said:


> better than Hillary, at lease he is trying to stick to what we voted for. Pepe factory here I come! sloud work solid pay


...thats funny because I didn't vote for her either. I sleep sound at night with a clean conscious.

All he is doing is setting the country back a couple of decades as far as national debt, jobs aren't getting better, and totally destroying any chance of the House and Senate maintaining a majority for the mid term....as a Republican, we are screwed for the next 10 years. I also laugh at my Libertarian representatives who turned their back on the base and fundamentals by voting for the tax plan.

As far as the OP, let me know how that 'New factory job works out for you....Im sure you won't be leaving this forum anytime soon.

Uber On.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Praise Kek
Save kekistan
Trickle down economics may or may not work, Obama's special form of socialism obviously didn't either....


----------



## tohunt4me

I notice Funding was cut to the world socialist organization promoting Globalism, the United Nations.
Nikki Haley said U.N. spending was excessive and wasteful.

Looks like the Globalists will be waiting a bit longer.

Enjoy your new World Government Carbon Tax Canada !



tohunt4me said:


> I notice Funding was cit to the world socialist organization promoting Globalism, the United Nations.
> Nikki Haley said U.N. spending was excessive and wasteful.
> 
> Looks like the Globalists will be waiting a bit longer.
> 
> Enjoy your new World Government Carbon Tax Canada !
> The same one Hillary would have had US DRIVERS paying by now pushing U.N. AGENDA 21
> Long live the SOVEREIGN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OUR CONSTITUTION !


----------



## mark_mark

tohunt4me said:


> I notice Funding was cut to the world socialist organization promoting Globalism, the United Nations.
> Nikki Haley said U.N. spending was excessive and wasteful.
> 
> Looks like the Globalists will be waiting a bit longer.
> 
> Enjoy your new World Government Carbon Tax Canada !


Canada, "Little Potatoe" keep trying boss man, Praise Kek



Juggalo9er said:


> Praise Kek
> Save kekistan
> Trickle down economics may or may not work, Obama's special form of socialism obviously didn't either....


Pepe Love you Bro


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> Canada, "Little Potatoe" keep trying boss man, Praise Kek
> 
> Pepe Love you Bro


. I'm getting all teary eyed


----------



## Veal66

According to CBS News (12/26/17), Uber drivers do get a tax break due to the new law.

"Gig economy workers like Uber drivers and freelancers will benefit under the tax plan's treatment of pass-through income. The tax bill provides a 20 percent deduction to pass-through businesses, many of which are small businesses like landscapers and Uber drivers. Under previous law, that income was taxed at the personal income rate. But with Republicans lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, that left a big gap between what big businesses would pay versus independent contractors or small business, given the top individual tax bracket will be 37 percent. The pass-through deduction was created as a way to solve that discrepancy."

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-tax-breaks-in-the-new-gop-tax-bill/9/


----------



## mark_mark

Veal66 said:


> According to CBS News (12/26/17), Uber drivers do get a tax break due to the new law.
> 
> "Gig economy workers like Uber drivers and freelancers will benefit under the tax plan's treatment of pass-through income. The tax bill provides a 20 percent deduction to pass-through businesses, many of which are small businesses like landscapers and Uber drivers. Under previous law, that income was taxed at the personal income rate. But with Republicans lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, that left a big gap between what big businesses would pay versus independent contractors or small business, given the top individual tax bracket will be 37 percent. The pass-through deduction was created as a way to solve that discrepancy."
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-tax-breaks-in-the-new-gop-tax-bill/9/


eveything little dime helps man! make me feel good


----------



## Merc7186

mark_mark said:


> eveything little dime helps man! make me feel good


Good God....what the hell is that???

It looks like a strung out Kermit after going to a Nickleback Concert and all he can think about is having a small child sit on his lap while he sings 'Rainbow Connection'.....just wrong.


----------



## mark_mark




----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


>


It will be OK PePe....

Starting next year...

things will be different...

Our fearless leader will be named...

"Master of the Universe"...

And all it surrounds...

And he will name simians...

As just another branch of the tree...

And Uber drivers will now be called...

"U" drivers...stands for Universal...

And Subway and Uber partner up...

So U drivers can always eat for free...8>)

Can a monkey dream or what...!?

Happy New Year...!!!

Rakos


----------



## Juggalo9er

Rakos said:


> It will be OK PePe....
> 
> Starting next year...
> 
> things will be different...
> 
> Our fearless leader will be named...
> 
> "Master of the Universe"...
> 
> And all it surrounds...
> 
> And he will name simians...
> 
> As just another branch of the tree...
> 
> And Uber drivers will now be called...
> 
> "U" drivers...stands for Universal...
> 
> And Subway and Uber partner up...
> 
> So U drivers can always eat for free...8>)
> 
> Can a monkey dream or what...!?
> 
> Happy New Year...!!!
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 189079


It's already all starting in kekistan


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

The problem is..

The worst off uber drivers (orlando for instance) 

Won't end up owing any taxes anyway, so no it won't help. It might help the better markets however...


----------



## empresstabitha

mark_mark said:


> Trump will bring back factory jobs and we won't have to drive drunks and entitled brats around. LOVE some Trump action! hear they are opening a Pepe factory in kekistan


Machines are taking your factory job. Get over it


----------



## Oscar Levant

mark_mark said:


> man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


$60 per year for most of us. Millions for rich folks, though. Once the deficits soar, expect inflation and erosion of your savings, if you have any.



Merc7186 said:


> LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???
> 
> Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. The fact that you think factory jobs are coming back in such vast numbers that you won't have Uber anymore means you must have been part of the lowest common denominator minority that voted for him. Good Luck with that.


I'm giving trickle down a new name: Tinkle Down



Juggalo9er said:


> Praise Kek
> Save kekistan
> Trickle down economics may or may not work, Obama's special form of socialism obviously didn't either....


Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production which is a type of totalitarianism. Obama, and most dems, are not socialists by that definition. When they say "democratic socialism", it doesn't mean totalitarianism, it means something similar to Canada, France, Norway, etc. I find it notable that in these countries, per capita costs for health care are about half of that in the United States.

In my four years as an Uber driver, I've asked every foreigner from these countries this question: "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the USA?" The answer has been a unanimous, unequivocal, NO!

Before Obama, I could not afford health care, after passage of the ACA, I got the HealthNet silver plan, $500 deductible ( never once was imposed ) $132 per month. Emergency room visits were $75. I had an $8000 operation, my cost was $300.

California really embraced the ACA, and provided a robust state exchange with many choices, plans, deductibles. The point is, many states did not, and the federal exchange is probably a minimalist one, where the idea was for all the states to participate, and come up with their own exchanges. Those who argue their state has no choices, are living in states that opted out. It doesn't mean the ACA was bad, it's just that your governor is resisting providing your states citizens with affordable health care, assuming it wouln't work, etc. Thing is, it does, if and when your state would do as California did.

Every time I get into a debate with republicans, they immediately knee-jerk with a "you goose stepping comrads-in-arms socialists" blah blah blah. See what I mean? Knock it off with the red baiting strawman arguments.


----------



## mark_mark

empresstabitha said:


> Machines are taking your factory job. Get over it


they been saying that year! they just move them overseas


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> $60 per year for most of us. Millions for rich folks, though. Once the deficits soar, expect inflation and erosion of your savings, if you have any.
> 
> I'm giving trickle down a new name: Tinkle Down
> 
> Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production which is a type of totalitarianism. Obama, and most dems, are not socialists by that definition. When they say "democratic socialism", it doesn't mean totalitarianism, it means something similar to Canada, France, Norway, etc. I find it notable that in these countries, per capita costs for health care are about half of that in the United States.
> 
> In my four years as an Uber driver, I've asked every foreigner from these countries this question: "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the USA?" The answer has been a unanimous, unequivocal, NO!
> 
> Before Obama, I could not afford health care, after passage of the ACA, I got the HealthNet silver plan, $500 deductible ( never once was imposed ) $132 per month. Emergency room visits were $75. I had an $8000 operation, my cost was $300.
> 
> California really embraced the ACA, and provided a robust state exchange with many choices, plans, deductibles. The point is, many states did not, and the federal exchange is probably a minimalist one, where the idea was for all the states to participate, and come up with their own exchanges. Those who argue their state has no choices, are living in states that opted out. It doesn't mean the ACA was bad, it's just that your governor is resisting providing your states citizens with affordable health care, assuming it wouln't work, etc. Thing is, it does, if and when your state would do as California did.
> 
> Every time I get into a debate with republicans, they immediately knee-jerk with a "you goose stepping comrads-in-arms socialists" blah blah blah. See what I mean? Knock it off with the red baiting strawman arguments, or I'll start calling you guys fascists ( it's about as logical as the red baiting, ad nauseum, by the right )


While it worked it well for you

. On my end it as a little different

I work 60 hours a week on top of driving
My healthcare premium went from $81 to $187

Deductible went from 0
To $2500

You benefited, I got screwed


----------



## mark_mark

Oscar Levant said:


> $60 per year for most of us. Millions for rich folks, though. Once the deficits soar, expect inflation and erosion of your savings, if you have any.
> 
> I'm giving trickle down a new name: Tinkle Down
> 
> Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production which is a type of totalitarianism. Obama, and most dems, are not socialists by that definition. When they say "democratic socialism", it doesn't mean totalitarianism, it means something similar to Canada, France, Norway, etc. I find it notable that in these countries, per capita costs for health care are about half of that in the United States.
> 
> In my four years as an Uber driver, I've asked every foreigner from these countries this question: "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the USA?" The answer has been a unanimous, unequivocal, NO!
> 
> Before Obama, I could not afford health care, after passage of the ACA, I got the HealthNet silver plan, $500 deductible ( never once was imposed ) $132 per month. Emergency room visits were $75. I had an $8000 operation, my cost was $300.
> 
> California really embraced the ACA, and provided a robust state exchange with many choices, plans, deductibles. The point is, many states did not, and the federal exchange is probably a minimalist one, where the idea was for all the states to participate, and come up with their own exchanges. Those who argue their state has no choices, are living in states that opted out. It doesn't mean the ACA was bad, it's just that your governor is resisting providing your states citizens with affordable health care, assuming it wouln't work, etc. Thing is, it does, if and when your state would do as California did.
> 
> Every time I get into a debate with republicans, they immediately knee-jerk with a "you goose stepping comrads-in-arms socialists" blah blah blah. See what I mean? Knock it off with the red baiting strawman arguments, or I'll start calling you guys fascists ( it's about as logical as the red baiting, ad nauseum, by the right )


so much to read... what happened to quirky one liners! zingers and thinggers


----------



## Oscar Levant

mark_mark said:


> so much to read... what happened to quirky one liners! zingers and thinggers


Zingers are nice, but understand that if you don't read, think, contemplate, educate, etc., your mind will become nothing more than a bucket full of thought terminating clichés.



Juggalo9er said:


> While it worked it well for you
> 
> . On my end it as a little different
> 
> I work 60 hours a week on top of driving
> My healthcare premium went from $81 to $187
> 
> Deductible went from 0
> To $2500
> 
> You benefited, I got screwed


What can I say? How about 'Move to California' ?

It's true that the ACA squeezed higher income folks, but every attempt by dems to fix the problem was thwarted by repubs blocking their legislation, repubs who didn't want Obama to succeed, noting that it was repub policy #1 to do anything, by any justifiable means, to remove Obama. Fact is, repubs tried 60 times to repeal ACA and failed. Once taking the presidency, and both houses, they still couldn't do it. Why? Because they have no viable alternative, they don't have a better idea. If they did, it would be the law of the land. All repub ideas lead to fewer people having access to health care. The reason is simple, health care does not work well in a free market, for the same reason fire departments do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason defense and police depts do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason postal service doesn't work well in a free market environment -- i.e., some things have to be socialized. At some point, repubs are going to have to acquiesce to the idea that the way the winds are blowing are universal health care solutions, for they work better than free market solutions for health care. All of the developed nations have it, and their health care costs per capita are half of what it is in the USA. Repubs argue "we can't afford 'medicare-for-everyone' " but the truth is, we can't afford not to since the simple fact is that, by removing the insurance layer and allowing gov to negotiate drug prices, it would be much cheaper per capita than what we have now in America. The evidence for this truth is overwhelming. Every argument they raise can be countered by simple empirical data observed in other countries ( western developed countries ).

This isn't socialism in the sense of Marxism. That type of Socialism ( which is totalitarianism) would want to socialize everything, from the making of cars, furniture, shoes, everything, but no democrat or progressive is advocating that, so repubs need to lay off the red baiting, calling us "marxists" etc. It's a grandiose strawman. Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs, that's my credo. Where doth the pendulum rest? It rests upon settling at the center.


----------



## Tr4vis Ka1anick

Juggalo9er said:


> It's already all starting in kekistan


Free Kekistan!

Everyone dance in solidarity to the national anthem.


----------



## mark_mark

Oscar Levant said:


> Zingers are nice, but understand that if you don't read, think, contemplate, educate, etc., your mind will become nothing more than a bucket full of thought terminating clichés.
> 
> What can I say? How about 'Move to California' ?
> 
> It's true that the ACA squeezed higher income folks, but every attempt by dems to fix the problem was thwarted by repubs blocking their legislation, repubs who didn't want Obama to succeed, noting that it was repub policy #1 to do anything, by any justifiable means, to remove Obama. Fact is, repubs tried 60 times to repeal ACA and failed. Once taking the presidency, and both houses, they still couldn't do it. Why? Because they have no viable alternative, they don't have a better idea. If they did, it would be the law of the land. All repub ideas lead to fewer people having access to health care. The reason is simple, health care does not work well in a free market, for the same reason fire departments do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason defense and police depts do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason postal service doesn't work well in a free market environment -- i.e., some things have to be socialized. At some point, repubs are going to have to acquiesce to the idea that the way the winds are blowing are universal health care solutions, for they work better than free market solutions for health care. All of the developed nations have it, and their health care costs per capita are half of what it is in the USA. Repubs argue "we can't afford 'medicare-for-everyone' " but the truth is, we can't afford not to since the simple fact is that, by removing the insurance layer and allowing gov to negotiate drug prices, it would be much cheaper per capita than what we have now in America. The evidence for this truth is overwhelming. Every argument they raise can be countered by simple empirical data observed in other countries ( western developed countries ).
> 
> This isn't socialism in the sense of Marxism. That type of Socialism ( which is totalitarianism) would want to socialize everything, from the making of cars, furniture, shoes, everything, but no democrat or progressive is advocating that, so repubs need to lay off the red baiting, calling us "marxists" etc. It's a grandiose strawman. Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs, that's my credo. Where doth the pendulum rest? It rests upon settling at the center.


ha? I got like 2 words and I was like ha?!?!


----------



## tohunt4me

Tr4vis Ka1anick said:


> Free Kekistan!
> 
> Everyone dance in solidarity to the national anthem.


Grand Admiral Tyrone
Extends an Offer for Opportunity and Excellence in the K.A.F.
Even a Lowly Uber Driver can become a Leader of Men in the FREE PEOPLES
KEKISTAN ARMED FORCES !

Sign up today !

Be " ALL THAT YOU EVER DREAMED OF"!

Donations of Munitions and Funding welcome also.



mark_mark said:


> they been saying that year! they just move them overseas


FOREIGN ROBOTS ARE TAKING AMERICAN ROBOT JOBS !!!


----------



## Juggalo9er




----------



## Veju

I doubt many uber drivers were concerned about the possibility of estate taxes. Once the Republicans are done looting and pillaging the social safety net, all you'll have are your boot straps left.

"Lower rates means more revenue" -now where have we heard that before


----------



## mark_mark

Veju said:


> I doubt many uber drivers were concerned about the possibility of estate taxes. Once the Republicans are done looting and pillaging the social safety net, all you'll have are your boot straps left.
> 
> "Lower rates means more revenue" -now where have we heard that before


here is the Dems solution for working class .... Welfare

they always think they know what's best for you. but government cheese just keeps you on the government teet


----------



## mark_mark

Oscar Levant said:


> Zingers are nice, but understand that if you don't read, think, contemplate, educate, etc., your mind will become nothing more than a bucket full of thought terminating clichés.
> 
> What can I say? How about 'Move to California' ?
> 
> It's true that the ACA squeezed higher income folks, but every attempt by dems to fix the problem was thwarted by repubs blocking their legislation, repubs who didn't want Obama to succeed, noting that it was repub policy #1 to do anything, by any justifiable means, to remove Obama. Fact is, repubs tried 60 times to repeal ACA and failed. Once taking the presidency, and both houses, they still couldn't do it. Why? Because they have no viable alternative, they don't have a better idea. If they did, it would be the law of the land. All repub ideas lead to fewer people having access to health care. The reason is simple, health care does not work well in a free market, for the same reason fire departments do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason defense and police depts do not work well in a free market environment, for the same reason postal service doesn't work well in a free market environment -- i.e., some things have to be socialized. At some point, repubs are going to have to acquiesce to the idea that the way the winds are blowing are universal health care solutions, for they work better than free market solutions for health care. All of the developed nations have it, and their health care costs per capita are half of what it is in the USA. Repubs argue "we can't afford 'medicare-for-everyone' " but the truth is, we can't afford not to since the simple fact is that, by removing the insurance layer and allowing gov to negotiate drug prices, it would be much cheaper per capita than what we have now in America. The evidence for this truth is overwhelming. Every argument they raise can be countered by simple empirical data observed in other countries ( western developed countries ).
> 
> This isn't socialism in the sense of Marxism. That type of Socialism ( which is totalitarianism) would want to socialize everything, from the making of cars, furniture, shoes, everything, but no democrat or progressive is advocating that, so repubs need to lay off the red baiting, calling us "marxists" etc. It's a grandiose strawman. Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs, that's my credo. Where doth the pendulum rest? It rests upon settling at the center.


Get out Normies... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

haha free Kek!


----------



## Rakos

Actually... it's.....

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD...

Tommorrow Cali...

Slips off into the twilight zone...

Recreational WEED...

Starts tomorrow...

Everyone in Cali....

Head for the hills...8>)

Rakos









PS. And you thought "fruits and nuts" was bad...8>)


----------



## Juggalo9er




----------



## Tr4vis Ka1anick

mark_mark said:


> Get out Normies... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
> 
> haha free Kek!


Trihard in the chat boys!


----------



## mark_mark

burn!


----------



## Juggalo9er




----------



## mark_mark

Juggalo9er said:


> View attachment 190505


my meme magic is growing stonger, shitposting level 4. 200bc the sumerian warned us about Normies... praise Kek, Pepe loves you... one day we will be freed from out Uber master!



Juggalo9er said:


> View attachment 190435


so rare! can I buy 1202? 50 Kekcoins?


----------



## Juggalo9er




----------



## mark_mark

Juggalo9er said:


> View attachment 190540


happy New Years Pepe!


----------



## jonhjax

Merc7186 said:


> ...thats funny because I didn't vote for her either. I sleep sound at night with a clean conscious.
> 
> All he is doing is setting the country back a couple of decades as far as national debt, jobs aren't getting better, and totally destroying any chance of the House and Senate maintaining a majority for the mid term....as a Republican, we are screwed for the next 10 years. I also laugh at my Libertarian representatives who turned their back on the base and fundamentals by voting for the tax plan.
> 
> As far as the OP, let me know how that 'New factory job works out for you....Im sure you won't be leaving this forum anytime soon.
> 
> Uber On.


Why do "Libertarians" vote Republican instead of for the candidate of their own party? Maybe because they're not really "Libertarians'". I'm sick of people calling themselves "Libertarians" who don't even vote their party and that includes everyone I've met so far. Stand up for your party, "Libertarians" and your party might actually mean something one day.



Veal66 said:


> According to CBS News (12/26/17), Uber drivers do get a tax break due to the new law.
> 
> "Gig economy workers like Uber drivers and freelancers will benefit under the tax plan's treatment of pass-through income. The tax bill provides a 20 percent deduction to pass-through businesses, many of which are small businesses like landscapers and Uber drivers. Under previous law, that income was taxed at the personal income rate. But with Republicans lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, that left a big gap between what big businesses would pay versus independent contractors or small business, given the top individual tax bracket will be 37 percent. The pass-through ded was created as a way to solve that discrepancy."
> Uber and Lyft driers are all in the bottom brcket. If you make more than $10,000 you'll get a reduction on you taxes. How many drivers who read this made that much taxable income?
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-tax-breaks-in-the-new-gop-tax-bill/9/


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Veal66 said:


> According to CBS News (12/26/17), Uber drivers do get a tax break due to the new law.
> 
> "Gig economy workers like Uber drivers and freelancers will benefit under the tax plan's treatment of pass-through income. The tax bill provides a 20 percent deduction to pass-through businesses, many of which are small businesses like landscapers and Uber drivers. Under previous law, that income was taxed at the personal income rate. But with Republicans lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, that left a big gap between what big businesses would pay versus independent contractors or small business, given the top individual tax bracket will be 37 percent. The pass-through deduction was created as a way to solve that discrepancy."
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-tax-breaks-in-the-new-gop-tax-bill/9/


Most self employed don't have s or c corps. So no they wouldn't benefit.


----------



## Bphelps

Merc7186 said:


> LOL....thats adorable. What flavor is that Kool Aid anyways???
> 
> Trickle Down Economics does not work in today's corporate culture. The fact that you think factory jobs are coming back in such vast numbers that you won't have Uber anymore means you must have been part of the lowest common denominator minority that voted for him. Good Luck with that.


This isn't trickle down. It's trickle in every tax bracket. Turn off cnn



jonhjax said:


> Why do "Libertarians" vote Republican instead of for the candidate of their own party? Maybe because they're not really "Libertarians'". I'm sick of people calling themselves "Libertarians" who don't even vote their party and that includes everyone I've met so far. Stand up for your party, "Libertarians" and your party might actually mean something one day.


Trump is libertarian.


----------



## tohunt4me

empresstabitha said:


> Machines are taking your factory job. Get over it


When we are starving

We will come for your DOG FOOD.

THEN THE DOG.



mark_mark said:


> here is the Dems solution for working class .... Welfare
> 
> they always think they know what's best for you. but government cheese just keeps you on the government teet


VOTE FOR " GOVERNMENT CHEESE"
And
"And RIDE THE WHITE HORSE"!

Gettyup Government Mule !
Pull that Wagon.


----------



## Rakos

tohunt4me said:


> When we are starving
> 
> We will come for your DOG FOOD.
> 
> THEN THE DOG.


So does this mean...

That you want point... ?

*Monkey Meat started A.I.D.S. in many countries. (See next post)*

So you see...your a damn fool...

If you eat monkey meat...8>)

Rakos


----------



## tohunt4me

Bphelps said:


> This isn't trickle down. It's trickle in every tax bracket. Turn off cnn
> 
> Trump is libertarian.


Long Live the Sovereign United States of America and the U.S. CONSTITUTION AS SUPREME LAW.

LONG LIVE MANS GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF FREE WILL !

Down with Evil Transhumanist Satanist Globalists !



Rakos said:


> So does this mean...
> 
> That you want point... ?
> 
> Rakos


Monkey Meat started A.I.D.S. in many countries.
(always make sure your Illegal monkey meat { Bush Meat} is cooked !)


----------



## mark_mark

Rakos said:


> So does this mean...
> 
> That you want point... ?
> 
> *Monkey Meat started A.I.D.S. in many countries. (See next post)*
> 
> So you see...your a damn fool...
> 
> If you eat monkey meat...8>)
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 191678


that monkey meat looks good


----------



## Fishchris

steveK2016 said:


> If most drivers are already paying little to no tax, how will more tax breaks help?


Best answer right here.


----------



## unPat

mark_mark said:


> man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


It only benefits the recently created mining jobs in the rust belt states. I feel bad for you .


----------



## mark_mark

unPat said:


> It only benefits the recently created mining jobs in the rust belt states. I feel bad for you .


Pepe will save us all, just praise his name and all will be forgiven. Eternity in Kek with Pepe! jesus love you too


----------



## mark_mark

Craphole county pax..! they be like feed me Semore


----------



## Oscar Levant

Bphelps said:


> Trump is libertarian.


Libertarianism is wack. Besides, he is not a libertarian, or he wouldn't have nominated Jeff Sessions. Trump has no core beliefs of any kind, he has proven this on many occasions. He's also against Roe Vs Wade (not because he actually believes in something, because he knows he had to in order to garner support from the GOP. We know this is an expedience because when he was questioned as to whether or not a woman, having an abortion, should be punished, his reply was, after hesitation -- indicating that he hadn't thought it through - was yes, they should be. Thing is, a genuine conservative answering this, it would have been a no brainer, no, the woman should not be punished. So, it shows he's new to conservatism, and if you are new to your alleged beliefs while running for president, you are adopting a party out of expedience, not because you are that person. Remember, he used to be a democrat and he used to be for R Vs W, he used to be for universal health care, higher taxes on wealthy, etc. ), and libertarians support it.

Libertarians, as wacky as they are ( bless their hearts) don't screw contractors, don't create fake universities, etc. In fact, Trump is a criminal, on top of screwing hard working people, he's been aiding and abetting Russian mafia (as well as other mafia) types helping them launder their money by selling them condos from Panama to Helsinki at inflated prices in all cash transactions via shell companies. This has been investigated and reported on, read the latest BuzzFeed article. The data comes from online records, ez to prove. The tip off as to whether the transactions were money launder was the fact that many were quick flips and sold at losses to the buyer (not the end buyer, but the mafia guys who flipped the condos that laundered the money). Naturally, the buyer considers the loss (on the flip) as payment for laundering the money, it also proves Trump was complicit given the plethora of these transactions and we have vidoes and pictures of Trump chumming it up with Felix Sater, a known shady character. The Mueller investigation, as Bannon once proclaimed, will be mostly about money laundering. The Russian "collusion" thing will be a side show compared to it.

Think about it, Trump has been proclaiming over and over again, "There is no collusion" ( to throw the election ) and if I were going to describe a guilty man he's it. now, we need proof, but Trump sure acts like a guilty man. Moreover, he's hinted that Mueller's investigating his finances is "out of bounds" ( it's not ), and why is that? What is he hiding? Why won't he release his taxes? I think it is obvious. He's hiding stuff. And, what really makes it obvious is his contant obstructing justice efforts, which will be one of the items in the articles of impeachment.

I believe Trump will be impeached and will lose in the proceedings and be forced to resign. There is a gargantuan political struggle going on right now and dems have the advantage. The big reason dems have the advantage is because repubs have made a faustian bargain in backing Trump. He is literally destroying the GOP and poisoning the electorate against him and the GOP.

I can't wait for when Mueller is finished with his investigation, it's going to be the story of this decade. Hopefully, it will coincide when democrats take back the house ( and maybe the senate ) and they will, there is every indication this will come to pass --- a state senate republican lost his seat the other day to a dem and Trump one this district by 17 points. That's unheard of. A "BlueNami" is coming.


----------



## mark_mark

Oscar Levant said:


> Libertarianism is wack. Besides, he is not a libertarian, or he wouldn't have nominated Jeff Sessions. Trump has no core beliefs of any kind, he has proven this on many occasions. He's also against Roe Vs Wade (not because he actually believes in something, because he knows he had to in order to garner support from the GOP. We know this is an expedience because when he was questioned as to whether or not a woman, having an abortion, should be punished, his reply was, after hesitation -- indicating that he hadn't thought it through - was yes, they should be. Thing is, a genuine conservative answering this, it would have been a no brainer, no, the woman should not be punished. So, it shows he's new to conservatism, and if you are new to your alleged beliefs while running for president, you are adopting a party out of expedience, not because you are that person. Remember, he used to be a democrat and he used to be for R Vs W, he used to be for universal health care, higher taxes on wealthy, etc. ), and libertarians support it.
> 
> Libertarians, as wacky as they are ( bless their hearts) don't screw contractors, don't create fake universities, etc. In fact, Trump is a criminal, on top of screwing hard working people, he's been aiding and abetting Russian mafia (as well as other mafia) types helping them launder their money by selling them condos from Panama to Helsinki at inflated prices in all cash transactions via shell companies. This has been investigated and reported on, read the latest BuzzFeed article. The data comes from online records, ez to prove. The tip off as to whether the transactions were money launder was the fact that many were quick flips and sold at losses to the buyer. Naturally, the buyer considers the loss (on the flip) as payment for laundering the money, it also proves Trump was complicit given the plethora of these transactions and we have vidoes and pictures of Trump chumming it up with Felix Sater, a known shady character. The Mueller investigation, as Bannon once proclaimed, will be mostly about money laundering. The Russian "collusion" thing will be a side show compared to it.
> 
> thing about it, Trump has been proclaiming over and over again, "There is no collusion" ( to throw the election ) and if I were going to describe a guilty man he's it. now, we need proof, but Trump sure acts like a guilty man. I can't wait for when Mueller is finished with his investigation, it's going to be the story of this decade. Hopefully, it will coincide when democrats take back the house ( and maybe the senate ) and they will, there is every indication this will come to pass --- a state senate republican lost his seat the other day to a dem and Trump one this district by 17 points. That's unheard of. A "BlueNami" is coming.


Brah! you write too much, us Trumpers like one liners


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> View attachment 190505


So you are bigot? Please post a sign on your vehicle's window to warn people of this, I think they have a right to know.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> So you are bigot? Please post a sign on your vehicle's window to warn people of this, I think they have a right to know.


No I hate everyone equally.... You've apparently never served in the military hence you wouldn't see the humor in it


----------



## Oscar Levant

mark_mark said:


> better than Hillary, at lease he is trying to stick to what we voted for. Pepe factory here I come! sloud work solid pay


Hillary wouldn't have rescinded DACA. 
She wouldn't have gutted the EPA and the State Department ( just these two are very important to national security, and he's tearing them down)
She wouldn't have lowered taxes on billionaires and millionaires, she would have raised them.
She would have proposed even lower taxes ( than Trump has ) on middle class.
She wouldn't have undermined the ACA (Obamacare), she would have fixed it ( it's not a disaster, as Trump has been proclaiming, it just needs some work, as every new major piece of legislation needs )
She wouldn't have said the many ultra stupid things Trump has said. She wouldn't be vindictive and acting like a clown as Trump has done. 
She wouldnt have undermined her secretary of state, she would have made sure they both were on the same page.
she would have created an administration that would have been far more organized and disciplined than Trump has done. 
She would have nominated ambassadors and envoys to many countries where Trump is ignoring ( there is no ambassord to N & S Korea, for example ). 
She, unlike Trump, is well thought of on the international scene. 
Her policies would be motivated by inclusiveness and unification, whereas Trump's policies are exclusionary and divisive.
She would have went after Putin. 
She would have enacted the sanctions against Russia that Trump has ignored, in defiance of congress. 
She would have created a commission to deal with Russia's cyber attacks on our democracy, which Trump is ignoring, which constitutes dereliction of duty, an impeachable offense. 
She would have learned from the server issue, and not repeat that mistake, whereas Trump has allowed 6 cabinet members to use private servers, and he is giving out his cell phone number to foreign leaders and dignitaries. 
Whenever she would meet with foreign dignitaries in the Oval Office, she would not have excluded American photographers and personnel, as Trump has done. 
she would not be tweeting irresponsibly, and using twitter as an instrument of policy like Trump is doing, to the chagrin and dismay of just about everyone in the Senate and Congress and the majority of Americans. 
She wouldn't have been acting like a 14 year old when dealing with Kim Jong Um and she would have been doing a lot more diplomacy.

And I could go on and on, but why bother.


----------



## Juggalo9er

#MAGA



Oscar Levant said:


> Hillary wouldn't have rescinded DACA.
> She wouldn't have gutted the EPA and the State Department ( just these two are very important to national security, and he's tearing them down)
> She wouldn't have lowered taxes on billionaires and millionaires, she would have raised them.
> She would have proposed even lower taxes ( than Trump has ) on middle class.
> She wouldn't have undermined the ACA (Obamacare), she would have fixed it ( it's not a disaster, as Trump has been proclaiming, it just needs some work, as every new major piece of legislation needs )
> She wouldn't have said the many ultra stupid things Trump has said. She wouldn't be vindictive and acting like a clown as Trump has done.
> She wouldnt have undermined her secretary of state, she would have made sure they both were on the same page.
> she would have created an administration that would have been far more organized and disciplined than Trump has done.
> She would have nominated ambassadors and envoys to many countries where Trump is ignoring ( there is no ambassord to N & S Korea, for example ).
> She, unlike Trump, is well thought of on the international scene.
> Her policies would be motivated by inclusiveness and unification, whereas Trump's policies are exclusionary and divisive.
> She would have went after Putin.
> She would have enacted the sanctions against Russia that Trump has ignored, in defiance of congress.
> She would have created a commission to deal with Russia's cyber attacks on our democracy, which Trump is ignoring, which constitutes dereliction of duty, an impeachable offense.
> She would have learned from the server issue, and not repeat that mistake, whereas Trump has allowed 6 cabinet members to use private servers, and he is giving out his cell phone number to foreign leaders and dignitaries.
> Whenever she would meet with foreign dignitaries in the Oval Office, she would not have excluded American photographers and personnel, as Trump has done.
> she would not be tweeting irresponsibly, and using twitter as an instrument of policy like Trump is doing, to the chagrin and dismay of just about everyone in the Senate and Congress and the majority of Americans.
> She wouldn't have been acting like a 14 year old when dealing with Kim Jong Um and she would have been doing a lot more diplomacy.
> 
> And I could go on and on, but why bother.


Don't bhenghazi me


----------



## mark_mark

Oscar Levant said:


> So you are bigot? Please post a sign on your vehicle's window to warn people of this, I think they have a right to know.


I got a bigot in my pants


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> No I hate everyone equally.... You've apparently never served in the military hence you wouldn't see the humor in it


I see no humor in bigotry, nor does any self-respecting person.

Wanna see my Honorable Discharge from the Navy? Sorry, to disappoint.


----------



## mark_mark

ladyboy’s in the army! what next? catshemens


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> I see no humor in bigotry, nor does any self-respecting person.
> 
> Wanna see my Honorable Discharge from the Navy? Sorry, to disappoint.


I said military not Navy, your opinion is skewed from living on a vessel for days on end with other men... Move along

Had to add... Liberals are always for your free opinion to express yourself via homosexuality, or most other things... Until your opinion disagrees with theirs


----------



## observer

Oscar Levant said:


> Hillary wouldn't have rescinded DACA.
> She wouldn't have gutted the EPA and the State Department ( just these two are very important to national security, and he's tearing them down)
> She wouldn't have lowered taxes on billionaires and millionaires, she would have raised them.
> She would have proposed even lower taxes ( than Trump has ) on middle class.
> She wouldn't have undermined the ACA (Obamacare), she would have fixed it ( it's not a disaster, as Trump has been proclaiming, it just needs some work, as every new major piece of legislation needs )
> She wouldn't have said the many ultra stupid things Trump has said. She wouldn't be vindictive and acting like a clown as Trump has done.
> She wouldnt have undermined her secretary of state, she would have made sure they both were on the same page.
> she would have created an administration that would have been far more organized and disciplined than Trump has done.
> She would have nominated ambassadors and envoys to many countries where Trump is ignoring ( there is no ambassord to N & S Korea, for example ).
> She, unlike Trump, is well thought of on the international scene.
> Her policies would be motivated by inclusiveness and unification, whereas Trump's policies are exclusionary and divisive.
> She would have went after Putin.
> She would have enacted the sanctions against Russia that Trump has ignored, in defiance of congress.
> She would have created a commission to deal with Russia's cyber attacks on our democracy, which Trump is ignoring, which constitutes dereliction of duty, an impeachable offense.
> She would have learned from the server issue, and not repeat that mistake, whereas Trump has allowed 6 cabinet members to use private servers, and he is giving out his cell phone number to foreign leaders and dignitaries.
> Whenever she would meet with foreign dignitaries in the Oval Office, she would not have excluded American photographers and personnel, as Trump has done.
> she would not be tweeting irresponsibly, and using twitter as an instrument of policy like Trump is doing, to the chagrin and dismay of just about everyone in the Senate and Congress and the majority of Americans.
> She wouldn't have been acting like a 14 year old when dealing with Kim Jong Um and she would have been doing a lot more diplomacy.
> 
> And I could go on and on, but why bother.


I'm not much of a Hillary fan but I think in a way it's good she lost. Everything she would have tried to do or not do would have been blocked by Republicans. Good or bad, right or wrong, they would have blocked it.

Besides, sometimes it's good to do the wrong thing, Now we know where electing someone with Trumps credentials can get us.

Sometimes we learn more from the mistakes we make than we do with our successes.


----------



## Bphelps

Oscar Levant said:


> Hillary wouldn't have rescinded DACA.
> She wouldn't have gutted the EPA and the State Department ( just these two are very important to national security, and he's tearing them down)
> She wouldn't have lowered taxes on billionaires and millionaires, she would have raised them.
> She would have proposed even lower taxes ( than Trump has ) on middle class.
> She wouldn't have undermined the ACA (Obamacare), she would have fixed it ( it's not a disaster, as Trump has been proclaiming, it just needs some work, as every new major piece of legislation needs )
> She wouldn't have said the many ultra stupid things Trump has said. She wouldn't be vindictive and acting like a clown as Trump has done.
> She wouldnt have undermined her secretary of state, she would have made sure they both were on the same page.
> she would have created an administration that would have been far more organized and disciplined than Trump has done.
> She would have nominated ambassadors and envoys to many countries where Trump is ignoring ( there is no ambassord to N & S Korea, for example ).
> She, unlike Trump, is well thought of on the international scene.
> Her policies would be motivated by inclusiveness and unification, whereas Trump's policies are exclusionary and divisive.
> She would have went after Putin.
> She would have enacted the sanctions against Russia that Trump has ignored, in defiance of congress.
> She would have created a commission to deal with Russia's cyber attacks on our democracy, which Trump is ignoring, which constitutes dereliction of duty, an impeachable offense.
> She would have learned from the server issue, and not repeat that mistake, whereas Trump has allowed 6 cabinet members to use private servers, and he is giving out his cell phone number to foreign leaders and dignitaries.
> Whenever she would meet with foreign dignitaries in the Oval Office, she would not have excluded American photographers and personnel, as Trump has done.
> she would not be tweeting irresponsibly, and using twitter as an instrument of policy like Trump is doing, to the chagrin and dismay of just about everyone in the Senate and Congress and the majority of Americans.
> She wouldn't have been acting like a 14 year old when dealing with Kim Jong Um and she would have been doing a lot more diplomacy.
> 
> And I could go on and on, but why bother.


stock market at record breaking highs, the U.E. rates lowest in years, and the GDP is near 4. Trump has surpassed the reasons he was voted in. Everything else are non issues.


----------



## mark_mark

Trump Pump Trump Pump


----------



## Rakos

Quick...go buy some bitcoin...

It's bound to go up...8>)

Rakos


----------



## mark_mark

ant touching that stuff, buy GOLD! even aliens want gold


----------



## tohunt4me

mark_mark said:


> man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


----------



## observer

Oscar Levant said:


> $60 per year for most of us. Millions for rich folks, though. Once the deficits soar, expect inflation and erosion of your savings, if you have any.
> 
> I'm giving trickle down a new name: Tinkle Down
> 
> Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production which is a type of totalitarianism. Obama, and most dems, are not socialists by that definition. When they say "democratic socialism", it doesn't mean totalitarianism, it means something similar to Canada, France, Norway, etc. I find it notable that in these countries, per capita costs for health care are about half of that in the United States.
> 
> In my four years as an Uber driver, I've asked every foreigner from these countries this question: "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the USA?" The answer has been a unanimous, unequivocal, NO!
> 
> Before Obama, I could not afford health care, after passage of the ACA, I got the HealthNet silver plan, $500 deductible ( never once was imposed ) $132 per month. Emergency room visits were $75. I had an $8000 operation, my cost was $300.
> 
> California really embraced the ACA, and provided a robust state exchange with many choices, plans, deductibles. The point is, many states did not, and the federal exchange is probably a minimalist one, where the idea was for all the states to participate, and come up with their own exchanges. Those who argue their state has no choices, are living in states that opted out. It doesn't mean the ACA was bad, it's just that your governor is resisting providing your states citizens with affordable health care, assuming it wouln't work, etc. Thing is, it does, if and when your state would do as California did.
> 
> Every time I get into a debate with republicans, they immediately knee-jerk with a "you goose stepping comrads-in-arms socialists" blah blah blah. See what I mean? Knock it off with the red baiting strawman arguments.


"Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production".

What's it called when those that own all or most of production also control the state? Democracy? /s


----------



## mark_mark

observer said:


> "Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production".
> 
> What's it called when those that own all or most of production also control the state? Democracy? /s


Brah, you earned it you keep it!


----------



## tohunt4me

Rakos said:


> Quick...go buy some bitcoin...
> 
> It's bound to go up...8>)
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 196322


But
One must determine first
Which side of the net they find themselves.
The freedom side, or the daily catch?


----------



## observer

observer said:


> "Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production".
> 
> What's it called when those that own all or most of production also control the state? Democracy? /s


Actually, I guess it would be capitalism.


----------



## mark_mark

Juggalo9er said:


> I said military not Navy, your opinion is skewed from living on a vessel for days on end with other men... Move along
> 
> Had to add... Liberals are always for your free opinion to express yourself via homosexuality, or most other things... Until your opinion disagrees with theirs


so true, free speech unless they don't like it... then it's Nazi everywhere... that's why they lost to Trump, b.s liberal to the max... you mad bro

take a lesson from Little Pump


----------



## forqalso

observer said:


> Actually, I guess it would be capitalism.


It's called fascism.


----------



## mark_mark

forqalso said:


> It's called fascism.


it's called butthurt!


----------



## Juggalo9er

I remember the first time I almost ran over an anti fa member.... Do you remember your first time?

Peddridge farm remembers


----------



## mark_mark

I’m in Seattle, everyone is is a commie


----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


> it's called butthurt!


----------



## mark_mark

Rakos said:


> View attachment 196421


poor bear


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> I'm in Seattle, everyone is is a commie


Let's not forget about California


----------



## forqalso

mark_mark said:


> it's called butthurt!


You should have paid attention in school.


----------



## Juggalo9er

forqalso said:


> You should have paid attention in school.


But muh ged teacher sad


----------



## mark_mark

forqalso said:


> You should have paid attention in school.


why! I'm a Uber driver just like you! but guess what? I owe zero to the banks


----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


> why! I'm a Uber driver just like you! but guess what? I owe zero to the banks


You know banks...

Really hate people like you...8>)

Give em he$$...8>)

Rakos


----------



## forqalso

mark_mark said:


> why! I'm a Uber driver just like you! but guess what? I owe zero to the banks


Wrong. I'm part of the 90% turnover rate.


----------



## mark_mark

forqalso said:


> Wrong. I'm part of the 90% turnover rate.


cool story brah


----------



## forqalso

Another one to ignore. No time for fools.


----------



## Oscar Levant

observer said:


> "Socialism, by definition, is where the state owns all or most of the means of production".
> 
> What's it called when those that own all or most of production also control the state? Democracy? /s


It's called fascism, and currently, we are experience fabian (creeping) fascism.



jonhjax said:


> Why do "Libertarians" vote Republican instead of for the candidate of their own party? Maybe because they're not really "Libertarians'". I'm sick of people calling themselves "Libertarians" who don't even vote their party and that includes everyone I've met so far. Stand up for your party, "Libertarians" and your party might actually mean something one day.


These days, "libertarian" is a component, more than a party, such as conservative/libertarian, like a spice added to a hamburger. They vote republican because republican ( as well as democrats) are the only parties with a caucus in evry legislature across the political landscape. Libertarians have no caucus to speak of, so why vote for them? This is why Bernie ran as a dem, for "independents" have no caucus, so without a caucus, you don't get to write legislation or effect it. This is why Bernie caucuses with dems, for there is no independent caucus. ( this is the big reason he can't be elected president, because his being an independent is a strategic error insofar as trying to become president, no party likes a johnny-come-lately, so they don't nominate him).

Oh yeah, the DNC nominates, not the voters, due to the superdelegate system. That being said, Hillary didn't need any of the superdelegates given the 3 million margin of her victory over Bernie. We can argue DNC shenanigans, but even that won't account for the 3 million deficit Bernie lost by. The superdelegate system is in place in the DNC to prevent a wacko like Trump from hijacking the party. If the RNC had a similar system, Trump wouldn't have been nominated, and the current insanity we are now experiencing would not be happening. yeah, it means a good guy like Bernie coming in from the outside can't get nominated, but that's the price, apparently, the DNC is willing to pay for the benefit of preventing a wacko from hijacking the party. I'm not decided yet, on whether or not I like the idea of superdelegates. I'm inclined to not like it, believing that dems are not stupid enough to allow someone like Trump to hijack the party. One thing is clear, repubs certainly are.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Bphelps said:


> stock market at record breaking highs, the U.E. rates lowest in years, and the GDP is near 4. Trump has surpassed the reasons he was voted in. Everything else are non issues.


Laughable. America is doing well despite Trump, not because of Trump. Even if it were true, it's a faustian bargain if there ever were one, and that is being generous. Alas, but it's not true, so let's take a look.

The only piece of major legislation that will have a direct effect on the economy, the so-called "tax" bill, the effects of that law won't be felt until 2019. Most of the "deregulation" that Trump has being doing has been getting rid of environmental rules that will destroy the environment, or put our country in that direction, such as the law the prevents mining companies from polluting local streams as been rescinded, and this is the tip of the ice berg. This is not to mention the political termites the President has unleashed to destroy the EPA and the State department. This might have the immediate effect of helping jobs somewhat, but the cost to society owing to diminished health will more than offset immediate gains in the long run. What is happening in the state department is outright Treason, because it is music to Putin's ears. And let's not get into education, every education professional I've talked say that Devos is a nightmare, incompetent.

The current level of economic success, well, let's take a look. When Obama took office, the nation was in a steep downward decline, like a plane heading towards smashing in the earth, our nation was on the brink of total collapse, and especially the auto industry, they were about to go totally bankrupt.

Obama saved us from that crash, bailed out the auto industry, saved millions of jobs the first year ( vastly more than Trump created the first year ) and turned the nation around, and put the trajectory on an upward inclining path which has continued into the Trump administration, despite Trump's incompetence, and if you look at the jobs being created, it has been a steady upward climb since about a year after he took office, and that trajectory has continued into Trump's presidency, which he, naturally, didn't hesitate to take credit. The fact remains he has done nothing, legislatively, and even if he did, the fiscal year that belongs to Trump, after his election, didn't begin until sept 1st of 2017, and the fact remains he has done nothing legislatively that can effect the economy in his first year, so the nation is continuing on its upward trajectory -- America succeeds now despite Trump, NOT because of him.

But it might not for long, because the tax bill will cause an added 1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, which will accelerate inflation, and given the poor and middle class can't hedge anywhere near as well as the rich, whom the tax bill benefits vastly the most, the tax legislation effectively is a mass wealth transfer from the poor and middle class ot the rich and this will cause earnings erosion for those who cannot hedge, further eroding the economy.

For those that argue "he's a billionaire, and thus cannot be incompetent", there's an old saying, "a man rises to the level of his incompetence". it's not always true, but it is certainly true in Trump's case. Trump is truly a man unfit for the complex dynamics of governance, none of which is anything like running a business. It's a logical fallacy to believe that success in business automatically means success in running a country. The two are diametrically the opposite. In the 20s, Coolidge & Hoover gave us the great depression, which followed the "roaring twenties" their policies ( similar to repub policies now ) caused. In other words, they caused the economy to overheat, and the bubble burst in 1929 ( after Coolidge and as Hoover took over, both repubs.

Moving on...

The Trump administration, and the republican congress and senate constitutes one of the most incompetent body of people this country has ever experienced.

They have yet to pass a budget since Trump has taken office, all they have been able to do is continuing resolutions kicking the can down another month, month after month, no budget has been pass.

Aside from all of the insanity this causes, the most significant thing it causes is that the military can't plan effectively without a long term budget, and CRs pose a national security issue.

800,000 kids who were brought here when they were 2 or 3 years of age, who, with America being the only country they have known, many who can't even speak the language of their parents, the kids called the "dreamers' under DACA, which has been vanquished by Trump, are being threatened with deportation.

87% of Americans favor fixing DACA with permanent legislation, only 11% favor deportation. This idea that dems, if there is a gov shutdown, is nonsense. Repubs control the house, the senate, and the presidency.

The CHIP program is about to run out of money, this effects kids, the Community Health Program is about to run out of money lest a budget is passed, this effects millions, and the incompetent republicans are unable to do anything but stopgap measures, one month at a time, which wreaks havoc on our nation on levels you are apparently unable to grasp.

On top of all this, Trump rode into the presidency because of a fluke of the electoral college, he didn't have the "will of the people" as 3 million people voted for Hillary more than Trump. The house has more repubs not because of the popular vote, but because of district gerrymandering. The truth is, repubs can't win the popular vote, so they cheat.

Well, come November, dems will overcome republican redistricting/ gerrymandering and overwhelm it, and, given the way the winds are blowing as evidenced by the last few special elections (a Wisconsin state senate seat just went to a dem, despite Trump winning by 17% in that district ), dems are likely to at least take over the house, and when that happens, we are going to impeach Trump. If there ever were a president who needs to be impeached, it is Donald Trump. I realize the political implications, the uproar it will cause by his base, but the represent only 25/35% of the electorate, it's just that Trump is a threat to national security because of his lack of knowledge, wisdom, leadership, i.e, he is incompetent and not merely incompetence, he is incompetent on an epic scale.

Trump has been engaged in laundering money for Russian mafia and shady characters since the 80s, selling way over priced condos for cash to shell companies which are flipped at a loss quickly, which washes the money for these criminals, and Trump is complicit in these illegal enterprises.

Trump is monetizing the presidency to the tune of tens of millions, he is the most corrupt president in history, and the repubs in congress just shrug their shoulders.

When Mueller finishes his investigation, all of this will come to light, and it might also reveal Trump has conspired with russians to throw the election, if that is the case, then he will be impeached, for...

1. Conspiring with Russians to throw the election
2. Money laundering to the tune of millions
3. Obstruction of justice.

The evidence for #2 and #3 are overwhelming, and #1 is likely, we shall see.

Make no mistake, Trump is going down. He's incompetent, he lies (over 2000 lies to date by Politifact count ) he lauds dictators and attacks our own, he can't make up his mind about what he wants such that the congress and senate don't know what legislation to draft because stuff they have drafted, he rejects, and this after he just said he will pass whatever they send him ( this just happened with the Graham - Durbin bill, he told the congress and senate he would pass anything they send him, well, that is a lie, and we have McConnell on video, stating "we have to know what the President wants, or we will just be spinning our wheels" ) Trump has failed at leadership, that is the long and short of it.

And, to add insult to injury, Trump fornicated with a number of porn stars while Melania was pregnant, and paid the hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep them quiet. The evidence for this has been exposed in a recent WSJ article ( they are no tabloid ).

Trump is a stain on America, and he going down.

As for "Make America Great Again", nice slogan, but, unfortunately, in order for someone to make something great, that someone must first _be _great, and that would not be Trump.



observer said:


> I'm not much of a Hillary fan but I think in a way it's good she lost. Everything she would have tried to do or not do would have been blocked by Republicans. Good or bad, right or wrong, they would have blocked it.
> 
> Besides, sometimes it's good to do the wrong thing, Now we know where electing someone with Trumps credentials can get us.
> 
> Sometimes we learn more from the mistakes we make than we do with our successes.


I can think of only one reason that it might be good that she lost, for electing Trump has truly awaken dems more than any person in history. See, during midterms, dems go to sleep. We're a different type of people than repubs. Repubs are older, mostly, more politically active. Dems tend to be younger, we watch sitcoms, flix, Oprah, listen to music, rather than watch pundits on TV. During midterms, dems are not excited enough to vote, so repubs often win, not because they have a majority, but dems tend to sit it out during midterms. Well, along comes Trump, and lo, "hey dems, we suddenly realize that voting has consequences", so we are supercharged, we will turn out like you have never seen during the next election.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> It's called fascism, and currently, we are experience fabian (creeping) fascism.
> 
> So whatever you you believe Trump is doing is fascism... But socializing healthcare is A ok.... Gotcha Libby
> 
> These days, "libertarian" is a component, more than a party, such as conservative/libertarian, like a spice added to a hamburger. They vote republican because republican ( as well as democrats) are the only parties with a caucus in evry legislature across the political landscape. Libertarians have no caucus to speak of, so why vote for them? This is why Bernie ran as a dem, for "independents" have no caucus, so without a caucus, you don't get to write legislation or effect it. This is why Bernie caucuses with dems, for there is no independent caucus. ( this is the big reason he can't be elected president, because his being an independent is a strategic error insofar as trying to become president, no party likes a johnny-come-lately, so they don't nominate him).
> 
> Oh yeah, the DNC nominates, not the voters, due to the superdelegate system. That being said, Hillary didn't need any of the superdelegates given the 3 million margin of her victory over Bernie. We can argue DNC shenanigans, but even that won't account for the 3 million deficit Bernie lost by. The superdelegate system is in place in the DNC to prevent a wacko like Trump from hijacking the party. If the RNC had a similar system, Trump wouldn't have been nominated, and the current insanity we are now experiencing would not be happening. yeah, it means a good guy like Bernie coming in from the outside can't get nominated, but that's the price, apparently, the DNC is willing to pay for the benefit of preventing a wacko from hijacking the party. I'm not decided yet, on whether or not I like the idea of superdelegates. I'm inclined to not like it, believing that dems are not stupid enough to allow someone like Trump to hijack the party. One thing is clear, repubs certainly are.


----------



## Oscar Levant

It's called fascism, and currently, we are experience fabian (creeping) fascism.



Juggalo9er said:


> So whatever you you believe Trump is doing is fascism... But socializing healthcare is A ok.... Gotcha Libby


Don't conflate fascism with socialism. But, in terms of there extremes, both are bad. No one is arguing for totalitarian socialist state, like that of the USSR, not me, not Bernie, not any "democratic socialist", they are advocating capitalism for wants, socialism for needs, similar to Norway, France, Canada, etc. Republicans love to say dems are commies, etc., but it is a smear, it's jut not true and dems really are getting sick of it. It's called "red baiting". Let's get to the truth, and quit spewing false characterizations. I'm not calling Trump a fascist, but it is notable that he has a peculiar fascination with fascist countries, how they are able to do things without a critical press, or having to answer to a judiciary, senate, congress, etc., Trump would love nothing more than to be a dictator, though he wont' come right out and say it, his actions do not lie. He expresses admiration for Putin, he envies him. he calls the free press "the enemy of the people" and "fake news" Any news that doesn't put him in a positive light is fake, and "the enemy of the people". This is what dictators do. Out of his ignorance, he as advocated and overhaul over libel/slander laws, not realizing there are no federal laws on libel and slander over which the senate and the house have jurisdiction, all such laws are at the state level. The reason he says this is that he doesn't like criticism, and considers it libel. Sorry, it's not. All presidents, except Trump, believe in a strong free press. Nixon declared, in private ( never public ) that the press was "the enemy" but context he was saying "his enemy" whereas Trump has been declaring the press as "the enemy of the people" which suggests a revision of the first amendment. One could argue he is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitution by declaring the free press the enemy of the people. I support that contention. I assert this as fabian fascism because the act of declaring the free press as the enemy of the state is the first step on the road to fascism. It is astounding and profoundly disturbing that the President of the United States hs done this. Dictators across the globe are parroting is "fake news" remarks against those that criticize them. His abhorrent ways are propagating and infecting the globe. Trump, therefore, is a threat to national security, and that of the entire planet, given his ability to launch nukes and there is currently, no check on that one.

Imagine living in a place where, if you get sick, seriously ill, or have a debilitating accident, you don't have to worry about how the treatment is going to be paid for, that would be a tremendous cloud which hangs over many people's heads -- it would be lifted. Even with HMOs, and Insurance plans, there is always the thought in our heads, "I wonder if my plan covers this, or that, should it happen to me?" because who actually reads teh entire book that they send you when you are on a plan? It reads llike, this is covered, this isn't, and so on. Socialization is EVERYTHING IS COVERED, no questions. Just stop by, sign in, and wait for a doctor. That's how it was in the Navy, why not for everyone? Socializing health care is not only OK, it's the best solution. The cost per individual actually drops with this system, and it drops drastically.

The evidence is available (just look at the 48 developed nations that have it, and noting that no system is perfect, but in those countries, there are no people who are not covered. There are no countries you can name with a free market health care system where all of its citizens have access to health care, or can afford it. I hear the argument "they do have access" but in free market health care system, access isn't the point, affordability is the point. Not only this, the per capita cost of health care in those countries is about half of what it is in the United states. There is only one way to make health care affordable, by charging according to ability to pay, where the richest people have the greatest burden, for without this, the middle class and poor could never afford it. So, the argument is which system is the moral and just one? The one where only rich and affluent people can afford care, and tough luck for those that can't, or the universal health care system funded by a progressive tax which allows every one to have health care.

There is no absolute, and both have their arguments. The answer is with the voters. Progressive democrats believe that, in time, we will win this fight, Medicare-for-all will eventually become the law of the land, and all citizens will receive health care without having to worry about going bankrupt and that is the moral and just state or nation should be in. In fact, the country is shifting to the left, the demographics prove it.

As an Uber driver, I have put the question to every person coming from one of these countries, Canada, France, Denmark , Norway, etc, and I ask them "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the United States?"

So far, their reply has not only been a unanimous "No", and for many, it's "Hell no". "No Way" etc.

My governing philosophy is "Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs". Where does the pendulum rest? It rests only at the center.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> It's called fascism, and currently, we are experience fabian (creeping) fascism.
> 
> There's no way I'm reading all that
> .. By definition socialism is an economic step toward socialism... Say what
> 
> Don't conflate fascism with socialism. But, in terms of there extremes, both are bad. No one is arguing for totalitarian socialist state, like that of the USSR, not me, not Bernie, not any "democratic socialist", they are advocating capitalism for wants, socialism for needs, similar to Norway, France, Canada, etc. Republicans love to say dems are commies, etc., but it is a smear, it's jut not true and dems really are getting sick of it. It's called "red baiting". Let's get to the truth, and quit spewing false characterizations. I'm not calling Trump a fascist, but it is notable that he has a peculiar fascination with fascist countries, how they are able to do things without a critical press, or having to answer to a judiciary, senate, congress, etc., Trump would love nothing more than to be a dictator, though he wont' come right out and say it, his actions do not lie. He expresses admiration for Putin, he envies him. he calls the free press "the enemy of the people" and "fake news" Any news that doesn't put him in a positive light is fake, and "the enemy of the people". This is what dictators do. Out of his ignorance, he as advocated and overhaul over libel/slander laws, not realizing there are no federal laws on libel and slander over which the senate and the house have jurisdiction, all such laws are at the state level. The reason he says this is that he doesn't like criticism, and considers it libel. Sorry, it's not. All presidents, except Trump, believe in a strong free press. Nixon declared, in private ( never public ) that the press was "the enemy" but context he was saying "his enemy" whereas Trump has been declaring the press as "the enemy of the people" which suggests a revision of the first amendment. One could argue he is derelict in his duty to uphold the constitution by declaring the free press the enemy of the people. I support that contention. I assert this as fabian fascism because the act of declaring the free press as the enemy of the state is the first step on the road to fascism. It is astounding and profoundly disturbing that the President of the United States hs done this. Dictators across the globe are parroting is "fake news" remarks against those that criticize them. His abhorrent ways are propagating and infecting the globe. Trump, therefore, is a threat to national security, and that of the entire planet, given his ability to launch nukes and there is currently, no check on that one.
> 
> Imagine living in a place where, if you get sick, seriously ill, or have a debilitating accident, you don't have to worry about how the treatment is going to be paid for, that would be a tremendous cloud which hangs over many people's heads -- it would be lifted. Even with HMOs, and Insurance plans, there is always the thought in our heads, "I wonder if my plan covers this, or that, should it happen to me?" because who actually reads teh entire book that they send you when you are on a plan? It reads llike, this is covered, this isn't, and so on. Socialization is EVERYTHING IS COVERED, no questions. Just stop by, sign in, and wait for a doctor. That's how it was in the Navy, why not for everyone? Socializing health care is not only OK, it's the best solution. The cost per individual actually drops with this system, and it drops drastically.
> 
> The evidence is available (just look at the 48 developed nations that have it, and noting that no system is perfect, but in those countries, there are no people who are not covered. There are no countries you can name with a free market health care system where all of its citizens have access to health care, or can afford it. I hear the argument "they do have access" but in free market health care system, access isn't the point, affordability is the point. Not only this, the per capita cost of health care in those countries is about half of what it is in the United states. There is only one way to make health care affordable, by charging according to ability to pay, where the richest people have the greatest burden, for without this, the middle class and poor could never afford it. So, the argument is which system is the moral and just one? The one where only rich and affluent people can afford care, and tough luck for those that can't, or the universal health care system funded by a progressive tax which allows every one to have health care.
> 
> There is no absolute, and both have their arguments. The answer is with the voters. Progressive democrats believe that, in time, we will win this fight, Medicare-for-all will eventually become the law of the land, and all citizens will receive health care without having to worry about going bankrupt and that is the moral and just state or nation should be in. In fact, the country is shifting to the left, the demographics prove it.
> 
> As an Uber driver, I have put the question to every person coming from one of these countries, Canada, France, Denmark , Norway, etc, and I ask them "Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the United States?"
> 
> So far, their reply has not only been a unanimous "No", and for many, it's "Hell no". "No Way" etc.
> 
> My governing philosophy is "Capitalism for wants, Socialism for needs". Where does the pendulum rest? It rests only at the center.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> _ There's no way there's no way I'm reading all that_


 Yeah I can understand why you don't want to read it , because it totally destroys your comment, and that might make you extremely uncomfortable.

BTW...
Please place your reply outside the end quote tag, thanks.

And.... reading is good for you, you should try it sometime


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> Yeah I can understand why you don't want to read it , because it totally destroys your comment, and that might make you extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> BTW...
> Please place your reply outside the end quote tag, thanks.
> 
> And.... reading is good for you, you should try it sometime


What you are suggesting is not reading to educate myself, it's reading liberal babble....


----------



## observer

Juggalo9er said:


> What you are suggesting is not reading to educate myself, it's reading liberal babble.... I'll pass Libby


If you didn't read it how do you know it's babble?

Education is learning many viewpoints and keeping an open mind. When you close your mind to other views you stop learning.

I may not agree with many of your view points (I do agree with some) but I do read every one of your posts to better understand how you see things.

Fixing this country is going to require us to become one again and to do that we need to be able to communicate with each other as adults.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> What you are suggesting is not reading to educate myself, it's reading liberal babble.... I'll pass Libby


 No it's reading something that disagrees with you which you have arbitrarily labeled as babble which I suspect you have done in order to make yourself feel superior so that you don't have to read it. It falls under a false debate method called posturing which is neither effective or meaningful. If you don't want to debate just say you'd rather not but hurling insults is not impressive, not that you're trying to impress but it is weak.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> No it's reading something that disagrees with you which you have arbitrarily labeled as babble which I suspect you have done in order to make yourself feel superior so that you don't have to read it. It falls under a false debate method called posturing which is neither effective or meaningful. If you don't want to debate just say you'd rather not but hurling insults is not impressive, not that you're trying to impress but it is weak.


No it's called I work sixteen hour shifts and have little patience for some crying liberal to preach to me about how Trump is Satan, Hillary should have won, abortion is ok, the economy is doing terrible, or probably anything else you have to say....


----------



## sellkatsell44

Oscar Levant said:


> Yeah I can understand why you don't want to read it , because it totally destroys your comment, and that might make you extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> BTW...
> Please place your reply outside the end quote tag, thanks.
> 
> And.... reading is good for you, you should try it sometime


Actually one of the biggest misconception is that people do that on the reflex, and even if so, if you want someone to actually read what you are writing, because you have a valid and important point to get across-shouldn't you tailor your reply to your audience? Otherwise it'll just wash over their head and knowing this, then you aren't really replying for the sake of dialogue but replying just to prove a point with no real interest in changing anything.

People like that are exactly why we are where we are today and when I think about it, it's a shame.

Imho, there's nothing really progressive we can do to change unless there's a big shake-up. Who controls the money/resources rules the country. And if anything were to happen, there should be more of a push for small businesses to grow. Give the population of America choices. Choices with health care, choices with clothing, with groceries, with banks. The more broken up an industry is, take Uber for example, if there were more lyfts and the like...people would have choices. Not only as riders and drivers. This keeps the company in check without heavy hands. Same goes for health care, for availability of products and services. Making companies compete for the customer = win. It's sad to see more and more mergers and I have a bit of hope with more and more small businesses. If people understood what supporting small, local businesses mean in the long run...maybe even past them and their children, for the benefit of their grandchildren or great grandchildren. The problem is America is all about wanting results now, thinking now...and nothing of what now will result in decades later. Trump is the very embodiment of that.


----------



## Oscar Levant

sellkatsell44 said:


> Actually one of the biggest misconception is that people do that on the reflex, and even if so, if you want someone to actually read what you are writing, because you have a valid and important point to get across-shouldn't you tailor your reply to your audience? Otherwise it'll just wash over their head and knowing this, then you aren't really replying for the sake of dialogue but replying just to prove a point with no real interest in changing anything.
> 
> People like that are exactly why we are where we are today and when I think about it, it's a shame.
> 
> Imho, there's nothing really progressive we can do to change unless there's a big shake-up. Who controls the money/resources rules the country. And if anything were to happen, there should be more of a push for small businesses to grow. Give the population of America choices. Choices with health care, choices with clothing, with groceries, with banks. The more broken up an industry is, take Uber for example, if there were more lyfts and the like...people would have choices. Not only as riders and drivers. This keeps the company in check without heavy hands. Same goes for health care, for availability of products and services. Making companies compete for the customer = win. It's sad to see more and more mergers and I have a bit of hope with more and more small businesses. If people understood what supporting small, local businesses mean in the long run...maybe even past them and their children, for the benefit of their grandchildren or great grandchildren. The problem is America is all about wanting results now, thinking now...and nothing of what now will result in decades later. Trump is the very embodiment of that.


Nice point, but how does one "tailor" one's post? Do I use baby talk? abstain from compound sentences? What? I have no idea what's in someone's head, or what would constitute a comment that such a person would read. He has already admitted (ok, it's implied clearly, in my opinion ) he's the kind of person that only reads lengthy comments that confirm his right wing bias, and there's not much one can do about that.

Okay, you've moved into some other territory, great, let's take a look at some of the things you are saying.

You wrote: "if there were more lyfts and the like...people would have choices".

In the rideshare biz, there's a reason there aren't more choices. First, to compete with lyft and Uber one needs to raise billions, otherwise that service won't even be on the map, and that's no easy feat. Second, the transportation industry is historically unprofitable, and given that both Uber and Lyft are losing billions per year, raising money for a new service similar to these is now even much harder.

The Health care industry, history proves, does not function well in a free market ( not without subsidies and regulation) because in a free market scenario, only the frail and sick tend to need it the most and they tend to purchase insurance only when they need it, and that's not how health insurance works in order for it to be viable, you need large groups of people.

Either everyone contributes and spread the burden across the economy to lower the individual cost, or it falls apart. This is Obamacare. Obamacare can work, and does work in states that embraced it, but it's not without issues, sure, it needs fixing, but the repubs don't want Obama to have any lasting legacy (God forbid it might cause people to vote for democrats), so they are sabotaging it.

Before the ACA, there were cheap insurance programs, but these insurance companies had entire departments devoted to just one thing, figuring out ways to deny claims. The truth was, you could pay into an insurance plan for 30 years, and one day you had a catastrophic illness, and the insurance claims department subpoenaed your health records to find out you didn't tell them about the pre-existing (but minor, but enough to trigger denial ) condition you had before you signed up, for which, in your hour of need, they deny your claim. Also, before the ACA, insurance plans were group according to need, so younger, healthier groups would pay less, and older, sicker groups would pay more, a lot more, in fact, so much more it was beyond being affordable for millions of people.

That would be me. I'm older, and as such, my insurance (before the ACA ) was $600 per month. Well, I couldn't afford it. But, with the ACA, and millions more contributing to the pool, and the gov subsidy, now I can afford the $132 per month and the $500 deductible under the silver plan. That plan was not available in many states that bowed out of ACA, forcing their constituents to use the federal exchanges, which were no where near as robust as the states that embraced the ACA, such as California. Naturally, in those states that didn't embrace the ACA, they said "it doesn't work". Well, the truth is, it didn't work for them because hey didn't want it to work for them and the reason they didn't want it to work for them is that they didn't want Obama to succeed, for if he did, God forbid, more people would vote for democrats. That's the gawd awful truth. That's where we are today.

This happened to millions of people before the ACA. Because they were able to deny so many claims, they were able to offer insurance programs on the cheap. Sure, they covered basic stuff, giving people the false sense of security, not realizing that years from now, when they really might need it, it's a toss up whether they will actually pay or not, that their plans are junk. The whole point of insurance is to cure a fear of loss. It's supposed to make you feel secure. If there is a 50/50 chance you will not be covered, which was the state of affairs before the ACA, in catastrophic situations, then the policy is worthless.

The ACA put an end to this, because it was for the greater good. Doing so, naturally, costs would rise, but it was because of the added value. If a Cadillac cost more than a VW bug, that's not inflation, that's added value, it's actually worth more because of intrinsic value. In this metaphor, the bug was killing people, so it was taken out for the good of society. If one argues, let people decide what they want. Thing is, that philosophy doesn't factor how people can be manipulated by large corporations in clever ways, to buy things that will actually harm them in the long run, not find out about it until a day it's too late to do anything about it. That's when regulation is needed, to prevent such things from happening. The free market is needed, but it has limits, and must be regulated. But, thing is, costs actually rose considerably less, overall, than they did under the Bush years. Look it up, it's a fact.

You say it's sad to see all these mergers, and I'm happy you feel that way. but, that is the result of unregulated free markets, see, libertarianism leads to capital and power being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, which ultimately results in oligarchical domination of a society, and that's fascism.

Yes, I agree with your sentiments about the now society, the instant gratification world we live in, and that's not a good thing, either.



Juggalo9er said:


> No it's called I work sixteen hour shifts and have little patience for some crying liberal to preach to me about how Trump is Satan, Hillary should have won, abortion is ok, the economy is doing terrible, or probably anything else you have to say....


The more comments I read from right wingers like your comments, noticing the form and fashion they are structured, filled with ad hominems, thought terminating clichés, sophisms, strawmen, and overall inability to frame a constructive dialogue where there is a sincere desire to get at the truth, noting that I do not find that occurring anywhere near as much on the left, that alone tells me the left is, if I were just a betting man, looking in from the outside, the left is closer to the truth. You prove it every time you type something, but go ahead, get the last word in, continue to project into my writing what you wish existed but does not, in fact, and reafirm this very point I'm making.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> Nice point, but how does one "tailor" one's post? Do I use baby talk? abstain from compound sentences? What? I have no idea what's in someone's head, or what would constitute a comment that such a person would read. He has already admitted (ok, it's implied clearly, in my opinion ) he's the kind of person that only reads lengthy comments that confirm his right wing bias, and there's not much one can do about that.
> 
> Okay, you've moved into some other territory, great, let's take a look at some of the things you are saying.
> 
> You wrote: "if there were more lyfts and the like...people would have choices".
> 
> In the rideshare biz, there's a reason there aren't more choices. First, to compete with lyft and Uber one needs to raise billions, otherwise that service won't even be on the map, and that's no easy feat. Second, the transportation industry is historically unprofitable, and given that both Uber and Lyft are losing billions per year, raising money for a new service similar to these is now even much harder.
> 
> The Health care industry, history proves, does not function well in a free market ( not without subsidies and regulation) because in a free market scenario, only the frail and sick tend to need it the most and they tend to purchase insurance only when they need it, and that's not how health insurance works in order for it to be viable, you need large groups of people.
> 
> Either everyone contributes and spread the burden across the economy to lower the individual cost, or it falls apart. This is Obamacare. Obamacare can work, and does work in states that embraced it, but it's not without issues, sure, it needs fixing, but the repubs don't want Obama to have any lasting legacy (God forbid it might cause people to vote for democrats), so they are sabotaging it.
> 
> Before the ACA, there were cheap insurance programs, but these insurance companies had entire departments devoted to just one thing, figuring out ways to deny claims. The truth was, you could pay into an insurance plan for 30 years, and one day you had a catastrophic illness, and the insurance claims department subpoenaed your health records to find out you didn't tell them about the pre-existing (but minor, but enough to trigger denial ) condition you had before you signed up, for which, in your hour of need, they deny your claim. Also, before the ACA, insurance plans were group according to need, so younger, healthier groups would pay less, and older, sicker groups would pay more, a lot more, in fact, so much more it was beyond being affordable for millions of people.
> 
> That would be me. I'm older, and as such, my insurance (before the ACA ) was $600 per month. Well, I couldn't afford it. But, with the ACA, and millions more contributing to the pool, and the gov subsidy, now I can afford the $132 per month and the $500 deductible under the silver plan. That plan was not available in many states that bowed out of ACA, forcing their constituents to use the federal exchanges, which were no where near as robust as the states that embraced the ACA, such as California. Naturally, in those states that didn't embrace the ACA, they said "it doesn't work". Well, the truth is, it didn't work for them because hey didn't want it to work for them and the reason they didn't want it to work for them is that they didn't want Obama to succeed, for if he did, God forbid, more people would vote for democrats. That's the gawd awful truth. That's where we are today.
> 
> This happened to millions of people before the ACA. Because they were able to deny so many claims, they were able to offer insurance programs on the cheap. Sure, they covered basic stuff, giving people the false sense of security, not realizing that years from now, when they really might need it, it's a toss up whether they will actually pay or not, that their plans are junk. The whole point of insurance is to cure a fear of loss. It's supposed to make you feel secure. If there is a 50/50 chance you will not be covered, which was the state of affairs before the ACA, in catastrophic situations, then the policy is worthless.
> 
> The ACA put an end to this, because it was for the greater good. Doing so, naturally, costs would rise, but it was because of the added value. If a Cadillac cost more than a VW bug, that's not inflation, that's added value, it's actually worth more because of intrinsic value. In this metaphor, the bug was killing people, so it was taken out for the good of society. If one argues, let people decide what they want. Thing is, that philosophy doesn't factor how people can be manipulated by large corporations in clever ways, to buy things that will actually harm them in the long run, not find out about it until a day it's too late to do anything about it. That's when regulation is needed, to prevent such things from happening. The free market is needed, but it has limits, and must be regulated. But, thing is, costs actually rose considerably less, overall, than they did under the Bush years. Look it up, it's a fact.
> 
> You say it's sad to see all these mergers, and I'm happy you feel that way. but, that is the result of unregulated free markets, see, libertarianism leads to capital and power being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, which ultimately results in oligarchical domination of a society, and that's fascism.
> 
> Yes, I agree with your sentiments about the now society, the instant gratification world we live in, and that's not a good thing, either.
> 
> The more comments I read from right wingers like your comments, noticing the form and fashion they are structured, filled with ad hominems, thought terminating clichés, sophisms, strawmen, and overall inability to frame a constructive dialogue where there is a sincere desire to get at the truth, noting that I do not find that occurring anywhere near as much on the left, that alone tells me the left is, if I were just a betting man, looking in from the outside, the left is closer to the truth. You prove it every time you type something, but go ahead, get the last word in, and confirm this very point I'm making.


It's a forum not a book, make it short sweet and to the point, n like Hillary's loss on election night


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> It's a forum not a book, make it short sweet and to the point, n like Hillary's loss on election night


Life is complex, and in many examples, depending on what is being looked at, truth is a many nuanced thing, much of it is not that visible, and finding it requires working at it to uncover it so that all can see it. It's simplistic to assume all truths can be had with short and sweet sentences. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I write what is required to be written, because I dig a little deeper, that's all. Often, truth is buried deep and no short and sweet sentence will deliver into anyone's mind everything about that needs to be understood so that it can been known.

If you are not willing to work for it, it being "truth", work at it, dig for it, you will never find it.

The above two sentences basically say the same thing. The former does communicates the essence of the former, but the former conveys it at a more multidimensional level. I'm more into looking deeper into things. You should try the deep end of the pool, sometimes, you have freedom from being bound to the bottom, for in the shallow end, you depend on the bottom to hold you up.

Actually, Hillary's loss was nothing but, she garnered almost 3 million more votes than Trump. It is she and the democrats who won the "will of the people". Only by a fluke of the electoral college, which no one could have predicted, is Trump in office. That's not a win, that the will of the people is not being met is a supreme tragedy, a tragedy of such extreme proportions the horrors of it are unfolding today. But, a BlueNami is coming in November, watch for it.


----------



## sellkatsell44

Oscar Levant said:


> Nice point, but how does one "tailor" one's post? Do I use baby talk? abstain from compound sentences? What? I have no idea what's in someone's head, or what would constitute a comment that such a person would read. He has already admitted (ok, it's implied clearly, in my opinion ) he's the kind of person that only reads lengthy comments that confirm his right wing bias, and there's not much one can do about that.
> 
> Okay, you've moved into some other territory, great, let's take a look at some of the things you are saying.
> 
> You wrote: "if there were more lyfts and the like...people would have choices".
> 
> In the rideshare biz, there's a reason there aren't more choices. First, to compete with lyft and Uber one needs to raise billions, otherwise that service won't even be on the map, and that's no easy feat. Second, the transportation industry is historically unprofitable, and given that both Uber and Lyft are losing billions per year, raising money for a new service similar to these is now even much harder.
> 
> The Health care industry, history proves, does not function well in a free market ( not without subsidies and regulation) because in a free market scenario, only the frail and sick tend to need it the most and they tend to purchase insurance only when they need it, and that's not how health insurance works in order for it to be viable, you need large groups of people.
> 
> Either everyone contributes and spread the burden across the economy to lower the individual cost, or it falls apart. This is Obamacare. Obamacare can work, and does work in states that embraced it, but it's not without issues, sure, it needs fixing, but the repubs don't want Obama to have any lasting legacy (God forbid it might cause people to vote for democrats), so they are sabotaging it.
> 
> Before the ACA, there were cheap insurance programs, but these insurance companies had entire departments devoted to just one thing, figuring out ways to deny claims. The truth was, you could pay into an insurance plan for 30 years, and one day you had a catastrophic illness, and the insurance claims department subpoenaed your health records to find out you didn't tell them about the pre-existing (but minor, but enough to trigger denial ) condition you had before you signed up, for which, in your hour of need, they deny your claim. Also, before the ACA, insurance plans were group according to need, so younger, healthier groups would pay less, and older, sicker groups would pay more, a lot more, in fact, so much more it was beyond being affordable for millions of people.
> 
> That would be me. I'm older, and as such, my insurance (before the ACA ) was $600 per month. Well, I couldn't afford it. But, with the ACA, and millions more contributing to the pool, and the gov subsidy, now I can afford the $132 per month and the $500 deductible under the silver plan. That plan was not available in many states that bowed out of ACA, forcing their constituents to use the federal exchanges, which were no where near as robust as the states that embraced the ACA, such as California. Naturally, in those states that didn't embrace the ACA, they said "it doesn't work". Well, the truth is, it didn't work for them because hey didn't want it to work for them and the reason they didn't want it to work for them is that they didn't want Obama to succeed, for if he did, God forbid, more people would vote for democrats. That's the gawd awful truth. That's where we are today.
> 
> This happened to millions of people before the ACA. Because they were able to deny so many claims, they were able to offer insurance programs on the cheap. Sure, they covered basic stuff, giving people the false sense of security, not realizing that years from now, when they really might need it, it's a toss up whether they will actually pay or not, that their plans are junk. The whole point of insurance is to cure a fear of loss. It's supposed to make you feel secure. If there is a 50/50 chance you will not be covered, which was the state of affairs before the ACA, in catastrophic situations, then the policy is worthless.
> 
> The ACA put an end to this, because it was for the greater good. Doing so, naturally, costs would rise, but it was because of the added value. If a Cadillac cost more than a VW bug, that's not inflation, that's added value, it's actually worth more because of intrinsic value. In this metaphor, the bug was killing people, so it was taken out for the good of society. If one argues, let people decide what they want. Thing is, that philosophy doesn't factor how people can be manipulated by large corporations in clever ways, to buy things that will actually harm them in the long run, not find out about it until a day it's too late to do anything about it. That's when regulation is needed, to prevent such things from happening. The free market is needed, but it has limits, and must be regulated. But, thing is, costs actually rose considerably less, overall, than they did under the Bush years. Look it up, it's a fact.
> 
> You say it's sad to see all these mergers, and I'm happy you feel that way. but, that is the result of unregulated free markets, see, libertarianism leads to capital and power being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, which ultimately results in oligarchical domination of a society, and that's fascism.
> 
> Yes, I agree with your sentiments about the now society, the instant gratification world we live in, and that's not a good thing, either.
> 
> The more comments I read from right wingers like your comments, noticing the form and fashion they are structured, filled with ad hominems, thought terminating clichés, sophisms, strawmen, and overall inability to frame a constructive dialogue where there is a sincere desire to get at the truth, noting that I do not find that occurring anywhere near as much on the left, that alone tells me the left is, if I were just a betting man, looking in from the outside, the left is closer to the truth. You prove it every time you type something, but go ahead, get the last word in, continue to project into my writing what you wish existed but does not, in fact, and reafirm this very point I'm making.


The fact that you're already getting defensive on the first line indicates a lot.

You should think about who you're talking to because in that post referenced, it sounds like a mash up of copy and paste from online journals.

Your last line speaks of you not me.

I'm okay with open dialogue, but how is health care not working in a "free market"? If you have more choices, you can shop around. It's a simple theory. But because there aren't enough to shop around (not an Uber to the taxi company not a Warby Parker to the vision, not an Airbnb to the hotel) then of course, no one is going to purchase health care insurance. Even with Obama's care, I had to pay $300 for the cheapest option...monthly...and that if I were to use it, it wouldn't even cover my expenses entirely when I use it...for anything...there's a high deductible, it only covers 70-80% of the basic procedures, about 60% for higher ones...etc etc.

I can't imagine what it was like before.

Yet, under my parents insurance, I got to go to a hospital like Stanford or UCSF and stay there for weeks, coverage fully paid for, because their insurance combined (although my dad had to pay $500 extra a month to add me on his) was well worth it. For half a year, I was in the hospital with my own personal room, with the meds, the care, etc that I need.

But yeah, go ahead and rant on in your own way without a care as to how anyone reads it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

sellkatsell44 said:


> The fact that you're already getting defensive on the first line indicates a lot.
> 
> You should think about who you're talking to because in that post referenced, it sounds like a mash up of copy and paste from online journals.
> 
> Your last line speaks of you not me.
> 
> I'm okay with open dialogue, but how is health care not working in a "free market"? If you have more choices, you can shop around. It's a simple theory. But because there aren't enough to shop around (not an Uber to the taxi company not a Warby Parker to the vision, not an Airbnb to the hotel) then of course, no one is going to purchase health care insurance. Even with Obama's care, I had to pay $300 for the cheapest option...monthly...and that if I were to use it, it wouldn't even cover my expenses entirely when I use it...for anything...there's a high deductible, it only covers 70-80% of the basic procedures, about 60% for higher ones...etc etc.
> 
> I can't imagine what it was like before.
> 
> Yet, under my parents insurance, I got to go to a hospital like Stanford or UCSF and stay there for weeks, coverage fully paid for, because their insurance combined (although my dad had to pay $500 extra a month to add me on his) was well worth it. For half a year, I was in the hospital with my own personal room, with the meds, the care, etc that I need.
> 
> But yeah, go ahead and rant on in your own way without a care as to how anyone reads it.


Don't confuse explaining one's position with being "defensive". That's silly. I'm not a mind reader, my writing reflects my mind, not yours. I invite anyone to read it if they are interested, if not, then don't. In no way am I trying to get anyone to read it. It's not that I don't care, I do, but I'm not a mind reader. If I were to assume, tailor my message to others I assume they want to read, I would be something other than who I am, what would be the point of that? You read it, you responded, so what's the problem?

I think you missed the point. You assuming that in a subsidized system there are no choices, and nothing could be further from the truth. When I signed on to Covered California, there will several dozen plans, on three levels, bronze, silver, and platinum, to choose from. That's not a rant, that's the truth. It's not that health care does not function in a free market, it just that it doesn't function very well ion a free market. I'm not against aspects of it being 'capitalistic', there are boutique components to health care, but there are areas a single payer system, such as medicare, works better, or at least it does for me, so my opinion is based on my experience.When I signed onto medicare, I was given a list of several dozen clinics many of which were listed on yelp with reviews. So, there are choices, and the idea that the socialized system does not have some of the advantages of a free market is nonsense. Progressives are not arguing for state run hospitals, we are arguing for single payer, where the free market clinics and hospitals exist as they do, but for those who can't afford it, the gov pays the bill. That way, everyone is covered, and no one has to die for want of medical attention. That is fair and just, and the right thing to do. What I support is for both system to coexist, and they can. That way, for those who can't afford it, medicare is an option, the public option, and for those who prefer the private way, go for it. It's that way with education, if you want to take your child to a private school, go for it. No one is stopping you.

I'm not insulting you, so, please, I ask that you don't insult me. Don't make the mistake of interpreting my writing style as patronizing, it's not, its' just how I write -- methodically, well - articulated, and sometimes that requires a lot of typing and precision to get to the point I'm trying to make. Granted, most people are simpler in their style, but I don't call them simpletons ( well, no one is perfect, one can get pissed in this human world ) or at least I try my best to be civil.


----------



## sellkatsell44

Oscar Levant said:


> Don't confuse explaining one's position with being "defensive". That's silly. I'm not a mind reader, my writing reflects my mind, not yours. I invite anyone to read it if they are interested, if not, then don't. In no way am I trying to get anyone to read it. It's not that I don't care, I do, but I'm not a mind reader. If I were to assume, tailor my message to others I assume they want to read, I would be something other than who I am, what would be the point of that? You read it, you responded, so what's the problem?
> 
> I think you missed the point. You assuming that in a subsidized system there are no choices, and nothing could be further from the truth. When I signed on to Covered California, there will several dozen plans, on three levels, bronze, silver, and platinum, to choose from. That's not a rant, that's the truth. It's not that health care does not function in a free market, it just that it doesn't function very well ion a free market. I'm not against aspects of it being 'capitalistic', there are boutique components to health care, but there are areas a single payer system, such as medicare, works better, or at least it does for me, so my opinion is based on my experience.When I signed onto medicare, I was given a list of several dozen clinics many of which were listed on yelp with reviews. So, there are choices, and the idea that the socialized system does not have some of the advantages of a free market is nonsense. Progressives are not arguing for state run hospitals, we are arguing for single payer, where the free market clinics and hospitals exist as they do, but for those who can't afford it, the gov pays the bill. That way, everyone is covered, and no one has to die for want of medical attention. That is fair and just, and the right thing to do.
> 
> I'm not insulting you, so, please, I ask that you don't insult me. Don't make the mistake of interpreting my writing style as patronizing, it's not, its' just how I write -- methodically, well - articulated, and sometimes that requires a lot of typing and precision to get to the point I'm trying to make. Granted, most people are simpler in their style, but I don't call them simpletons ( well, no one is perfect, one can get pissed in this human world ) or at least I try my best to be civil.


How is my post any different from yours that you can say pls don't insult me, I ain't insulting you?

Like those passive aggressive remarks...

I respond because I felt like it.

Do you use baby talk? That's what tailoring the response means? Abstain from compound sentences, etc...

Uh huh.


----------



## Oscar Levant

sellkatsell44 said:


> How is my post any different from yours that you can say pls don't insult me, I ain't insulting you?
> 
> Like those passive aggressive remarks...
> 
> I respond because I felt like it.
> 
> Do you use baby talk? That's what tailoring the response means? Abstain from compound sentences, etc...
> 
> Uh huh.


No, you're not like others I'm dealing with on this forum, who do tend to insult, my apologioes if I've grouped you with them.


----------



## Juggalo9er

Oscar Levant said:


> Life is complex, and in many examples, depending on what is being looked at, truth is a many nuanced thing, much of it is not that visible, and finding it requires working at it to uncover it so that all can see it. It's simplistic to assume all truths can be had with short and sweet sentences. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I write what is required to be written, because I dig a little deeper, that's all. Often, truth is buried deep and no short and sweet sentence will deliver into anyone's mind everything about that needs to be understood so that it can been known.
> 
> If you are not willing to work for it, it being "truth", work at it, dig for it, you will never find it.
> 
> The above two sentences basically say the same thing. The former does communicates the essence of the former, but the former conveys it at a more multidimensional level. I'm more into looking deeper into things. You should try the deep end of the pool, sometimes, you have freedom from being bound to the bottom, for in the shallow end, you depend on the bottom to hold you up.
> 
> Actually, Hillary's loss was nothing but, she garnered almost 3 million more votes than Trump. It is she and the democrats who won the "will of the people". Only by a fluke of the electoral college, which no one could have predicted, is Trump in office. That's not a win, that the will of the people is not being met is a supreme tragedy, a tragedy of such extreme proportions the horrors of it are unfolding today. But, a BlueNami is coming in November, watch for it.


Miniature book, almost read it


----------



## Oscar Levant

Juggalo9er said:


> Miniature book, almost read it


Wisdom is not low-hanging fruit.


----------



## melusine3

Merc7186 said:


> Good God....what the hell is that???
> 
> It looks like a strung out Kermit after going to a Nickleback Concert and all he can think about is having a small child sit on his lap while he sings 'Rainbow Connection'.....just wrong.


Speaking of strung out, I was at my nieces house letting the dogs out. On the way over i was really drowsy and seeing some dark chocolate espresso beans though i bet one of these will perk me up. Meantime 2 calls from Uber, one ten miles away NAW abother FIVE miles away NOPE! Texted niece that i ate one and she called me right away letting me know these things are REALLY POTENT. Had to sign off of both (maybe i didnt really need to sign off lyft heehaw) and am waiting... I'm a total lightweight

UPDATE: That was 4 hours I'll never get back...


----------



## Rakos

Yeah butt...

They sure smooth the ride...8>)

Rakos


----------



## mark_mark

Rakos said:


> Yeah butt...
> 
> They sure smooth the ride...8>)
> 
> Rakos
> View attachment 197996


so sweet

alright have not check this posts in a bit, I got 2 moderators here... I swear I'm not a trouble maker... shiit poster, well different story


----------



## ColdRider

That Oscar Levant fella must think very highly of himself.


----------



## Juggalo9er

*triggered*


----------



## mark_mark

ColdRider said:


> That Oscar Levant fella must think very highly of himself.


4 real, he should be a writer... long old school AM content writer


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> 4 real, he should be a writer... long old school AM content writer


Isn't that how rush got started


----------



## mark_mark

Yep! Rush was a AM sports writer


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> Yep! Rush was a AM sports writer


Shhhh liberals will tell you they have a new twist on what has been said 1000x over...


----------



## mark_mark

shhhh, my bad! (quite voice) Rush, I need a iPhone 10! inside rush joke (quite voice)


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> shhhh, my bad! (quite voice) Rush, I need a iPhone 10! inside rush joke (quite voice)


 Not sure about the iPhone 10...I did get An s8 active for $300 brand new however


----------



## mark_mark

Rush gives away iPhone 10 to his callers ! lol


----------



## Juggalo9er

mark_mark said:


> Rush gives away iPhone 10 to his callers ! lol


Been a long time since I've been able to listen


----------



## mark_mark

every caller


----------



## ThePurpleWind

mark_mark said:


> man I hope this new tax break will benefit Drivers!


Only drivers that make $1,000,000+ a year.


----------



## Juggalo9er

ThePurpleWind said:


> Only drivers that make $1,000,000+ a year.


Not true


----------



## mark_mark

Wow Trump! last night was best speech since Moses part Sea to free the Jews from bondage! You the MAN bro!


----------



## tohunt4me

observer said:


> Actually, I guess it would be capitalism.


Facism.



forqalso said:


> It's called fascism.


Yea that !
" Facism. Is public risk
Private Gain"
Remember the G.M. BAILOUT ?

FLYING CARS !


----------



## mark_mark

Occam's Razor

leftist still can’t get over losing the election to a TV repair man. So they resorted to calling 2/3 of American nazi... great move Leftist! can’t wait for 7 more years


----------



## tohunt4me

mark_mark said:


> Occam's Razor
> 
> leftist still can't get over losing the election to a TV repair man. So they resorted to calling 2/3 of American nazi... great move Leftist! can't wait for 7 more years


Should quiet down to Whimpering by then . . .

If Reuplicans had HAMMER PROTESTS
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CALL TO BAN HAMMERS BY NOW !


----------



## mark_mark

if the republicans saved babies from Alligators, the Leftist would ban saving babies


----------



## Juggalo9er

#MAGA


----------



## mark_mark

Juggalo9er said:


> #MAGA


hell yeah!!!! trump can raw dog me any day!


----------



## mark_mark

Memo Much! like I thought, rigged elections, corruption to the highest levels! 

you Leftist still think Hillary was a glass celing breaker?!?! lol!


----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


> Memo Much! like I thought, rigged elections, corruption to the highest levels!
> 
> you Leftist still think Hillary was a glass celing breaker?!?! lol!


Something got broke...

And I don't think...

it was a glass ceiling...8>O

Someone needs to check...

On the glass floor...8>)

Rakos


----------



## mark_mark

yes please!


----------



## Rakos

mark_mark said:


> yes please!


Thats match of the century...8>)


----------



## mark_mark

I like how Obama during the Roast told Trump he would never be President! Trump was like, “ Challenge excepted” Obama is now like “I was just playing dog”


----------



## The Ghost of Travis

mark_mark said:


> hell yeah!!!! trump can raw dog me any day!


Are u angling for a 140k hush money?

I really feel like Ive read this whole thread somewhere else.

Is this the more Trumpkin friendly versus the Seattle MAGA thread?


----------



## mark_mark

yes I like to spead the Trump gospel to my out of town buddies


----------



## The Ghost of Travis

mark_mark said:


> yes I like to spead the Trump gospel to my out of town buddies


Is a good idea, you probably will do better with your gospel on the more national level versus Seattle.


----------



## mark_mark

Seattle is the real battle ground! Leftist every corner



Rakos said:


> Thats match of the century...8>)


please make it happen


----------



## The Ghost of Travis

mark_mark said:


> Seattle is the real battle ground! Leftist every corner
> 
> please make it happen


Seattle is like District 13 from the Hunger Games. This is where it will all start and people like u will just have to move Eastward.


----------



## mark_mark

The Ghost of Travis said:


> Seattle is like District 13 from the Hunger Games. This is where it will all start and people like u will just have to move Eastward.


Nope, I will be with the Proud Boys, kicking ass and not asking qustions


----------



## The Ghost of Travis

mark_mark said:


> Nope, I will be with the Proud Boys, kicking ass and not asking qustions


Haha, u will crumble and change sides like the weak Trumpkin you have become.


----------



## Saltyoldman

I don't know why Everyone has a problem with Hillary. I don't know about you but shit was good in the 90's with the Clintons at the helm. I need to get a Job today, Bam got a job. And then came Bush and the Republican economy. Things went very very bad. Companies saw what people were willing to do for nothing and continue to pay very low wages. If you make less than a Million a year Trump is not going to effect you in a positive way. Three types of people voted for Trump- Wealthy, Evangelicals, and people who think WWE is real and NASCAR should be in the summer Olympics. 
#I believe 'FAKE NEWS'



mark_mark said:


> Nope, I will be with the Proud Boys, kicking ass and not asking qustions


Or North to Sedro Wooley


----------



## mark_mark

Saltyoldman said:


> I don't know why Everyone has a problem with Hillary. I don't know about you but shit was good in the 90's with the Clintons at the helm. I need to get a Job today, Bam got a job. And then came Bush and the Republican economy. Things went very very bad. Companies saw what people were willing to do for nothing and continue to pay very low wages. If you make less than a Million a year Trump is not going to effect you in a positive way. Three types of people voted for Trump- Wealthy, Evangelicals, and people who think WWE is real and NASCAR should be in the summer Olympics.
> #I believe 'FAKE NEWS'
> 
> Or North to Sedro Wooley


the clinton and bush families need to go Time for a little Trump! self made millionaire-- MAGA


----------



## mark_mark

MAGA!!!


----------



## Kurt Simmons

No way mann..


----------

