Shoresy

There were about 10 bipartisan bills passed under Trump's first term.

The current term has zero bipartisan bills passed.

I suppose that's what Jeffries meant by "Maximum Warfare"

Make sure to ask "nicely"

Trump is advising all the American churches that they have to be prepared for that because it can be disruptive for them,

This might be the real reason for disarming Iran. They don't want Iran to nuke the Aliens for blasphemy. Jews are okay, though.

AOC's "new" rhetoric started with Obama's "you didn't build that" doctrine.

It's just a recognition of the tragically weakened property rights today in America.

and when looking at social justice, that all is still significant

Social justice is just a cleaner way to justify Communism and justify the eventual elimination of property rights.

It's an easier sell than 100 million+ dead corpses or memes of Cuba on TikTok.

People who believe in enforcing a Minimum wage often also believe in enforcing a Maximum wage.

In reality, those limits are artificial and arbitrary.

You can have the value of a job set near zero depending on how useless it is (like watching paint dry)

And it can go the other way as well.

Who was that old user who had a mental breakdown over your avatar and personally attacked you?

Well said, our resident Don Quixote. Slay those MAGA windmills, and save some birds.

Yes, the current SCOTUS removed all 3 of those Jim Crow policies within the last year.

3 examples:

Start with gerrymandering. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states were often required (or pressured) to draw majority-minority districts so minority voters could elect candidates of their choice. In practice, that means concentrating Black or Hispanic voters into specific districts, which reduces the voting influence of surrounding (often majority-white) districts. Courts have allowed this within limits, though they’ve also struck down maps that go too far, like in Shaw v. Reno. The key argument: districts are sometimes explicitly drawn with race as a primary factor, which inevitably advantages some racial groups over others in representation.

Next is college admissions. Under Grutter v. Bollinger, race could be used as one factor in admissions to promote diversity. This meant a white applicant could be rejected despite equal or better academic metrics. That system was largely ended by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, but for years it was a clear example of race being used in decision-making at a systemic level.

Third is race-based preferences in certain government programs, things like contracting goals or scholarships tied to minority status. These don’t overtly say “discourage white applicants,” but they, in practice, exclude or disadvantage them through the unfair competitive processes.

Whereas the ongoing self righteous Trumpian manifesto overtly has little regard for the the lives of some.

And as David Icke might say, the red hatted sycophants duly outsheep the sheep

I don't even know if we have any MAGA members on this site, so I can't judge their level of hatred toward their fellow man.

You, on the other hand, among many others here, have plenty of evidence for it.

And assassins are heavily motivated by that kind of hatred when their friends encourage them to act on their hatred.

You most certainly are the polar opposite of Gandhi here.

You keep talking about the supposed hatred coming from all the hypothetical MAGA people on this site, but we can directly read the hostility and contempt in your own posts. History shows that political violence is fueled when people normalize dehumanization and encourage others to view opponents as evil caricatures. Whatever we think of Trump, the rhetoric you’re using is the polar opposite of tolerance or nonviolence.

 I don't believe isolationism is the path, but I don't believe is stupid hegemonism that causes our lives at home to get significantly worse. For what specific reason too? The threats that Iran has posed have been the same for 30 years, and nothing has happened.

I suppose the only counter to this is asking: "What would happen to American security and its economy if nuclear war erupted in the Middle East?"

So it's ok to kill droolers? Does that make you feel righteous?

I love these manifestos and self-owns.

You can't save people from themselves.

the stuff of modern human society and modern human expectation.

Rattling a collection tin ain't going to work.

Clearly, USA needs exactly 2% more of these:

Seems like the question you are really asking is "how do we stop the trend of standards of living dropping when rich people leave, evade taxes, or just choose not to produce as much due to taxation."

The short answer is, "you simply don't."

You can get one-time relief with draconian tactics, such as suing companies for closing, or fining people with a one-time fine for moving out of the state. But that's extremely temporary relief for lowered standards of living, and those measures produce uncertainty for future investment, if anyone does dare to invest. That problem can only be solved with honey, not vinegar.

Taxation at its core is an attack on property rights, which was the core founding principle of the USA, making it uniquely one of the first nations ever to have strong property rights. The result being a vastly different standard of living compared to the rest of the world, most notably South American nations founded roughly the same time with independent colony origins, but without the nearly the same strong property rights.

Around the 1930s, America became fascinated with the idea of economic fascism, where the government plays a strong role in centrally managing private propertied industry. It's evolved to what the USA has today, with a massive 4th branch of government undermining property rights to the point that America is slowly regressing into South America. Taxing the rich is simply accelerating the damage to the standards of living in the USA that started with the experiments in economic fascism long ago.

20 years from now, you will be complaining about how you had to use your fingers to use a smartphone. In both directions, left AND right.

47

so it's all private money, my friend, not public. See the difference? That's not communist, but capitalist. Get it?

1) It’s pay-as-you-go, not a personal account

The Social Security Administration uses your current payroll taxes to pay all current beneficiaries. Your taxes don’t sit in a personal pot waiting for you. Current workers fund current retirees, which is one of many reasons the govt encouraged illegal migration to slow the inevitable collapse of this communist program.

2) The “trust funds” aren’t a personal lockbox

The Social Security Trust Funds hold U.S. Treasury securities. Surpluses buy Treasuries (which is really the govt financing other federal spending), and when needed, those IOUs are redeemed. It's not a vault of your private, personal cash.

3) Government-managed investments, not yours

By law, Social Security’s assets are invested in special U.S. Treasury securities, and these are chosen and managed by the government. You don’t pick assets, adjust risk, or allocate funds. Returns are set by Treasury rates, not your investment decisions. That’s fundamentally different from a private account you control. One is capitalism, the other is communism. The state owns and controls your retirement.

4) Benefits are formula-based and redistributive

The benefit formula replaces a higher share of earnings for lower-income workers and includes spousal/survivor/disability benefits. Payouts aren’t your exact contributions plus market returns. It's a progressive scale.

5) It’s mandatory taxation with legal enforcement

Payroll contributions are federal taxes set by law. You can’t opt out or redirect them to a personal account. You can't withdraw in different amounts. You work to provide the government with a retirement account that only they can control. If you evade the mandates long enough, you will eventually go to jail.

Communism in practice was/is a more rigid and brutal form of hierarchical tyranny and so not particularly different to the modus of the current US regime.

If you resist USA communist programs such as Social Security and Obamacare, where the government owns and manages the programs, you usually just go to jail for tax evasion or fraud if you don't pay instead of being killed with your family.

NY is literally installing a government-owned supermarket.

Blame William the Conqueror for inserting so much French into English. Extra complexity.

And yes, rid the world of Nazism and replace it with essentially Nazism.

Yes, tribes were a thing invented in 1933 Germany...along with the racial framing of diseases and evolution...thanks, Godwin.

Before the white man came of with diseases that killed off so many north and south native indigenous peopls

Damn son, evolution be racist 'n sheit.

Enjoy the therapeutic break from the TDS, my friend.

The only rights the declaration listed are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which all democrats agree with.

Abortion policy.

Pandemic mandates.

Gun control.

Progressive tax policies

Speech regulation.

Environmental regulations.

Rent control and housing rules.

Mandated healthcare policy.

Student loan forgiveness.

Affirmative action.

Immigration law enforcement violations and exceptions

Expansion of unelected alphabet agency mandates

No protections for surgery for minors

Occupational licensing requirements

Zoning restrictions on property use

Minimum wage laws

Compulsory public education laws

Mandated venues for public education

Drug prohibition policies

Civil asset forfeiture practices

Limits on homeschooling or curriculum standards

Price controls

Support for statewide rent cancellation during COVID

Backing “good cause eviction” limits on landlords

Advocating for public ownership of utilities (power)

Support for fare-free public transit funded with mandated taxation

Backing higher taxes on high earners and corporations, including partially used residences

Support for tenant protections over property rights

Advocating for reduced policing budgets and reallocating funds away from public safety

Mandated funding of government-managed supermarkets

Support for a mandated single-payer healthcare

Backing stricter labor regulations and union protections over the property rights of business owners

Support for ending many forms of private development incentives (rezoning/subsidies)

The above simply showed that gun bans might have made sense 40 years ago. Not in these times with this technology. Traditional guns are bordering on being obsolete. But political policies are usually 40 years or more behind the technology. Even the founding fathers couldn't foresee that problem.

As I said, everyone will be full of peace and love.

And then kill Hakeem, and everyone will be full of peace and love.

shots fired