Political Roundtable Part XI

[popper]

Rural elites don't care to listen to coastal liberals apparently. Very intolerant and elitist perspective you have.

It's just common sense. Consider that a neighborhood raises money to build a community pool and some decide not to contribute or become a member. When the annual meeting comes around does the pool membership allow those that did not contribute to participate in decisions or influence pool policy. Of course not.

um, we're talking about presidential approval polls here. I'm glad you've come forward to point out how much disdain you have for poor people and young people. Not only do you not care about what they have to say, but in your mind they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

But you didn't include retirees for some reason, despite the fact that they don't "pay the bills" either. I guess because their voting record aligns with your desired election outcomes, so it's cool.

As you can read from my original post my position has nothing to do with age, race, religion, etc. It's simply a requirement that one pay federal income taxes for a period of time before their presidential approval position has any meaning to me. Whether that period of time is 40 quarters or 20 quarters is up for debate. And yes, I've posted here that Americans who have never paid a dime in federal income taxes should not vote in federal elections. It will never happen of course but it would be the logical policy to adopt.

[AFM]

THIS IS NOW THE IVANKA TRUMP THREAD









RIP MY NO FAP 2017

[gtn130]

It's just common sense. Consider that a neighborhood raises money to build a community pool and some decide not to contribute or become a member. When the annual meeting comes around does the pool membership allow those that did not contribute to participate in decisions or influence pool policy. Of course not.

um, we're talking about presidential approval polls here. I'm glad you've come forward to point out how much disdain you have for poor people and young people. Not only do you not care about what they have to say, but in your mind they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

But you didn't include retirees for some reason, despite the fact that they don't "pay the bills" either. I guess because their voting record aligns with your desired election outcomes, so it's cool.

As you can read from my original post my position has nothing to do with age, race, religion, etc. It's simply a requirement that one pay federal income taxes for a period of time before their presidential approval position has any meaning to me. Whether that period of time is 40 quarters or 20 quarters is up for debate. And yes, I've posted here that Americans who have never paid a dime in federal income taxes should not vote in federal elections. It will never happen of course but it would be the logical policy to adopt.

So are you excluding retirees from this equation or nah?

And lol at this being "the logical policy to adopt" as if everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion and shouldn't vote. Just laughable that you think this way.

[montestewart]

RIP MY NO FAP 2017

1/1/2017 12:01 AM

[Wizardspride]

um, we're talking about presidential approval polls here. I'm glad you've come forward to point out how much disdain you have for poor people and young people. Not only do you not care about what they have to say, but in your mind they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

But you didn't include retirees for some reason, despite the fact that they don't "pay the bills" either. I guess because their voting record aligns with your desired election outcomes, so it's cool.

As you can read from my original post my position has nothing to do with age, race, religion, etc. It's simply a requirement that one pay federal income taxes for a period of time before their presidential approval position has any meaning to me. Whether that period of time is 40 quarters or 20 quarters is up for debate. And yes, I've posted here that Americans who have never paid a dime in federal income taxes should not vote in federal elections. It will never happen of course but it would be the logical policy to adopt.

So are you excluding retirees from this equation or nah?

And lol at this being "the logical policy to adopt" as if everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion and shouldn't vote. Just laughable that you think this way.

Next thing you know he'll be asking for a poll tax.

[TGW]

Rural elites don't care to listen to coastal liberals apparently. Very intolerant and elitist perspective you have.

It's just common sense. Consider that a neighborhood raises money to build a community pool and some decide not to contribute or become a member. When the annual meeting comes around does the pool membership allow those that did not contribute to participate in decisions or influence pool policy. Of course not.

um, we're talking about presidential approval polls here. I'm glad you've come forward to point out how much disdain you have for poor people and young people. Not only do you not care about what they have to say, but in your mind they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

But you didn't include retirees for some reason, despite the fact that they don't "pay the bills" either. I guess because their voting record aligns with your desired election outcomes, so it's cool.

[popper]

um, we're talking about presidential approval polls here. I'm glad you've come forward to point out how much disdain you have for poor people and young people. Not only do you not care about what they have to say, but in your mind they shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

But you didn't include retirees for some reason, despite the fact that they don't "pay the bills" either. I guess because their voting record aligns with your desired election outcomes, so it's cool.

As you can read from my original post my position has nothing to do with age, race, religion, etc. It's simply a requirement that one pay federal income taxes for a period of time before their presidential approval position has any meaning to me. Whether that period of time is 40 quarters or 20 quarters is up for debate. And yes, I've posted here that Americans who have never paid a dime in federal income taxes should not vote in federal elections. It will never happen of course but it would be the logical policy to adopt.

So are you excluding retirees from this equation or nah?

And lol at this being "the logical policy to adopt" as if everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion and shouldn't vote. Just laughable that you think this way.

Assuming the retiree previously worked the requisite time (40 quarters, 20 quarters, whatever) then of course they would be eligible to vote. I believe Social Security works along these lines regarding eligibility. I didn't say that "everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion". I said that their opinions regarding the President's approval/policy positions hold no meaning to me.

So my logic is laughable, that one must contribute to effect the policy decisions of our federal govt. and your position, one need not contribute to cancel out the vote of a contributor, is serious and well thought out.

Be honest with yourself gtn, in no other aspect of life are non-contributors given equal decision making weight to those of contributors. Again, it's just common sense.

[closg00]

Pious stone-throwers are the worst hypocrites.

"Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment allegation as former Fox News anchor Juliet Huddy settles with network "


http://www.salon.com/2017/01/10/bill-oreilly-hit-with-sexual-harassment-allegation-as-former-fox-news-anchor-juliet-huddy-settles-with-network/


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[DCZards]

dub post

[DCZards]

Dub post

[DCZards]

Be honest with yourself gtn, in no other aspect of life are non-contributors given equal decision making weight to those of contributors. Again, it's just common sense.

We need to make sure those wealthy businessmen who don't pay federal taxes (like Trump) don't have equal decision making rights.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

As you can read from my original post my position has nothing to do with age, race, religion, etc. It's simply a requirement that one pay federal income taxes for a period of time before their presidential approval position has any meaning to me. Whether that period of time is 40 quarters or 20 quarters is up for debate. And yes, I've posted here that Americans who have never paid a dime in federal income taxes should not vote in federal elections. It will never happen of course but it would be the logical policy to adopt.

So are you excluding retirees from this equation or nah?

And lol at this being "the logical policy to adopt" as if everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion and shouldn't vote. Just laughable that you think this way.

Assuming the retiree previously worked the requisite time (40 quarters, 20 quarters, whatever) then of course they would be eligible to vote. I believe Social Security works along these lines regarding eligibility. I didn't say that "everyone on welfare isn't equipped to have an opinion". I said that their opinions regarding the President's approval/policy positions hold no meaning to me.

So my logic is laughable, that one must contribute to effect the policy decisions of our federal govt. and your position, one need not contribute to cancel out the vote of a contributor, is serious and well thought out.

Be honest with yourself gtn, in no other aspect of life are non-contributors given equal decision making weight to those of contributors. Again, it's just common sense.

Your vote suppression plan is intrinsically intolerant of others' misfortune, which is the root of why it's so laughable. People can be on welfare or not have an income for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with unwillingness to "contribute" to the federal government. Maybe someone has a disability. Maybe someone was born in one the poorest neighborhoods of the country and hasn't gotten out. Not everyone has the resources to easily find a job.

A plan that would further penalize folks who are struggling by disenfranchising them is unquestionably cruel and is simply unnecessary.

[closg00]

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNN

https://apple.news/ATduusit6T_iOk6HdsQkCFw


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

How to remove Trump from office
By Richard Cohen

One remote remedy is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. It is, as it should be, a laborious process and requires provable acts of treason, bribery or other “high crimes and misdemeanors” — very high bars indeed and difficult to define. In fact, no president has ever gone the whole way: not Andrew Johnson and not Bill Clinton.

There is, however, another way. Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

link

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[closg00]

This helps to fill-in the blanks on Trump and Russians. Can you imagine the witch hunt Republicans would have if Trump was a Democrat? Trump as bailed-out by Russian mafia, he owes them half a billion dollars. You're damn straight they're gonna get everything they want.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/9/1618540/-Was-Donald-Trump-bailed-out-of-bankruptcy-by-Russia-crime-bosses?detail=email&link_id=2&can_id=3918f13f241aea70cd2b9ed7a26838ce&source=email-as-trump-is-jeered-watch-the-peoples-president-get-a-raucous-heartfelt-standing-ovation-in-nyc&email_referrer=as-trump-is-jeered-watch-the-peoples-president-get-a-raucous-heartfelt-standing-ovation-in-nyc&email_subject=as-trump-is-jeered-watch-the-peoples-president-get-a-raucous-heartfelt-standing-ovation-in-nyc


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Wizardspride]

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

[montestewart]

How to remove Trump from office
By Richard Cohen

One remote remedy is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. It is, as it should be, a laborious process and requires provable acts of treason, bribery or other “high crimes and misdemeanors” — very high bars indeed and difficult to define. In fact, no president has ever gone the whole way: not Andrew Johnson and not Bill Clinton.

There is, however, another way. Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

link

Richard Cohen's one of those people you encounter at parties who keep talking as if people are listening, but no one is. He might as well be talking about winter squash.

PS: They tried that 25th Amendment thing in 24, and I think we all know how that turned out.

[nate33]

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

I'll wait to hear more from this. That statement could mean a lot of things. Maybe someone like Rudy Guiliani spoke to some guy in the lower Duma asking him if Putin would be open minded to a visit to the U.S. in 2018.