What did Democrats do wrong?

[Reformed Offlian]

The year 1026 is yet more cryptic.

Was his band called Parliament Prehistoric back then?

Edward and the Confessors?

 

[Solitaire]

We told them facts. They can't do math, so you need to show them things that make them hate the rich, or at the least envy them.

They don't like to be ripped off. If you tell them Trump and Musk are ripping them off, it's "do think I'm stupid?" and well, that is where the cut you off.

But anyway, he said Musk had earned it all. And called me a communist. I refrained from explaining to him that it's too late to tax Musk.

And on the topic of wealth, he did not know a billion was 1000 million. I give up.

Teaching MAGA to hate... Isn't that a bit like teaching fish how to swim?
Damn, I wish I thought of that. There's an Ignoble Prize if done right.

If you really want them to develop skepticism about the conmen, not the rich persay, you need to find examples in history of other conmen they don't care about, and then, gently nudge. Still, don't expect a big effect.


PS: The trillion dollar pay package consists of shares and not money so it wouldn't get taxed anyway. Only if he sold those shares would he get taxed, but that's impossible.

Sell a thousand shares, easy. Sell, a million share it'll take quite a bit of time and planning. Simply because the number of buyers bringing new money into the market remains relatively small.

 

[Tero]

Teaching MAGA to hate... Isn't that a bit like teaching fish how to swim?
Damn, I wish I thought of that. There's an Ignoble Prize if done right.

If you really want them to develop skepticism about the conmen, not the rich persay, you need to find examples in history of other conmen they don't care about, and then, gently nudge. Still, don't expect a big effect.

MAGA is only going to understand if "they are going to pay" or "they are going to lose." Governmnet only exists to rip them off. They do not see a single thing governmnet should invest in, such as research or science, that is worth supporting. it might solve some problem for mankind dome day, sure. That does not concern them. Only one year ahead has any meaning to MAGA folks.

 

[Tero]

Teaching MAGA to hate... Isn't that a bit like teaching fish how to swim?
Damn, I wish I thought of that. There's an Ignoble Prize if done right.

If you really want them to develop skepticism about the conmen, not the rich persay, you need to find examples in history of other conmen they don't care about, and then, gently nudge. Still, don't expect a big effect.

I don't think there is any way to change MAGA people. I know there are about 30-40 million people that would be happy to kick me, the foreigner, out. Love it or leave. I didn't actually ever pick America. I have been putting up with America ever since my parents brought me here. It's worked out so far (and quite well 1980-2010), but I have no problem leaving either, if it comes to that. The only problem is family. They are stuck here, then.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Teaching MAGA to hate... Isn't that a bit like teaching fish how to swim?
Damn, I wish I thought of that. There's an Ignoble Prize if done right.

If you really want them to develop skepticism about the conmen, not the rich persay, you need to find examples in history of other conmen they don't care about, and then, gently nudge. Still, don't expect a big effect.


PS: The trillion dollar pay package consists of shares and not money so it wouldn't get taxed anyway. Only if he sold those shares would he get taxed, but that's impossible.

Sell a thousand shares, easy. Sell, a million share it'll take quite a bit of time and planning. Simply because the number of buyers bringing new money into the market remains relatively small.

You don't sell the shares - you put them up as collateral against a basically 0% interest loan and spend that as you like.

 

[wareyin]

Sure sure. And of course the protests in 202o and currently ongoing are totally peaceful.

Apparently it's pretty effective propaganda, seeing as about 3/4 of registered democrats support voter id and proof of citizenship being required. You know, the thing that almost every developed nation does as a standard? Realistically, it's only the subversive far left that opposes reasonable measures that will ensure election integrity regardless of party.

That is a gross and intentional misrepresentation of what I said. And you know it is.

You are really dedicated to twisting and misrepresenting my views.

Ah well. Knock yourself out. If you need to engage in purposeful misinformation about me to make yourself feel better about yourself, who am I to stop you?

Your claims about the J6 protests, about the security of elections, about trans people, and so many others are "purposeful misinformation". If you don't want to be viewed as a far right conservative, stop claiming to be a conservative while spreading far right propaganda.

Or continue trying to gaslight everyone into thinking you're a moderate independent. How's that working out for you?

 

[lobosrul5]

You don't sell the shares - you put them up as collateral against a basically 0% interest loan and spend that as you like.

SOFR + .5% is the absolute best rate you can get. Which would be 4.15% right now. If your shares lose value then you are now borrowing more. If your shares lose half their value you can no longer draw* on the account per Reg T of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The brokerage or bank pays taxes on income generated from the loan.

*Actually I misstated that. Your total outstanding loan amount can be up to half of the value of the shares at the end of the most recent trading day. I know this from personal experience.

 

[Segnosaur]

Donald Trump looked at the "protests" in Charlotte, saw the people marching where there were lots of people waving swastikas, and said "there are fine people there".

Sounds pretty close to "literal nazi" if you can look at a bunch of people proudly waving nazi flags, and chanting nazi slogans, and still say "find people".

Some who, you know, DOESN'T like fascism, would look at the 2 options and say "Harris is clearly better than Trump in every way possible. Even if I'm not a fan of hers, she is still the superior choice".

A person who is A-Ok with fascism would look at the 2 options and say "I don't care if the fascist gets into power".

Are you under the impression that people can't read my posts, and only read your responses to them

No but I am under the impression that a person who is A-Ok with a fascist taking power would want to try to minimize the impact of their acceptance of fascism, since fascism ain't that popular.

and thus your cheap and artless attempt at subterfuge is effective?

Where exactly is my 'subterfuge'?

You complained about people using the term 'literal nazis' instead of 'figurative'. So I pointed to Trump calling people protesting under actual Nazi flags "Fine people".

You tried to 'absolve' yourself by claiming you wasted votes in 2016 and 2024. I pointed out how a failure to vote against Trump means that you didn't care enough to make even a token effort to say no to fascism.

So where is my logic wrong on either of those points?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

SOFR + .5% is the absolute best rate you can get. Which would be 4.15% right now. If your shares lose value then you are now borrowing more. If your shares lose half their value you can no longer draw* on the account per Reg T of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The brokerage or bank pays taxes on income generated from the loan.

*Actually I misstated that. Your total outstanding loan amount can be up to half of the value of the shares at the end of the most recent trading day. I know this from personal experience.

who cares if the book value of the portfolio is in the billions?
As the saying goes: if you owe the bank a billion....

 

[lobosrul5]

who cares if the book value of the portfolio is in the billions?
As the saying goes: if you owe the bank a billion....

Yes, if we're talking a Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, the odds of them ever being margin called or very low. Unless AMZN or TSLA go bust that is.

I am as it stands, in favor of some sort of wealth tax of 5% for equity holding over a billion (made up arbitrary number, but something like that). We either do something like that, or we inflate our way out of this federal debt. Theres no realistic 3rd alternative.

 

[Random]

SOFR + .5% is the absolute best rate you can get. Which would be 4.15% right now. If your shares lose value then you are now borrowing more. If your shares lose half their value you can no longer draw* on the account per Reg T of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The brokerage or bank pays taxes on income generated from the loan.

*Actually I misstated that. Your total outstanding loan amount can be up to half of the value of the shares at the end of the most recent trading day. I know this from personal experience.

So if the value of the shares you use as collateral drop below half the value of the loan, the bank can ask for more collateral? Interesting, did not know that.

Still room for having the share price drop though. The whole point of Buy, Borrow, Die is that your heirs settle up the outstanding loan, either by selling off enough of the shares right away (avoiding capital gains taxes), or giving up the collateral to the bank depending on which is the better deal. For the bank, it is really just an odd way to gamble on the stock market.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump went through his entire Real Estate cycle with his holdings as collateral, with both he and the bank knowing that they were vastly overvalued.
And because he was so indebted, he didn't pay taxes.

This system needs to be abolished, as it allows the wealthy to did twice into the common pot of money: once by decreasing the amount of available loans, and again by hiding their gains.

 

[lobosrul5]

So if the value of the shares you use as collateral drop below half the value of the loan, the bank can ask for more collateral? Interesting, did not know that.

Still room for having the share price drop though. The whole point of Buy, Borrow, Die is that your heirs settle up the outstanding loan, either by selling off enough of the shares right away (avoiding capital gains taxes), or giving up the collateral to the bank depending on which is the better deal. For the bank, it is really just an odd way to gamble on the stock market.

For example, you have shares worth exactly $1 million. You can borrow $500,000. You do that and you are now at 2:1 margin*. That is the margin, by federal regulations you must keep at the end of a trading day you must keep without increasing margin either by withdrawing more, or buying more shares. Its a 4:1 margin ratio that you must keep before the requirement is the brokerage starts force selling. They are free to set rules safer than that, like keeping 3:1 margin if they want.

*of course 1 day later the brokerage accrues a bit of interest against your account and you are slightly worse than 2:1 margin.

If you think thats nuts, remember lots of people buy houses with just 5% down... thats 20:1 margin on a property.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your claims about the J6 protests, about the security of elections, about trans people, and so many others are "purposeful misinformation". If you don't want to be viewed as a far right conservative, stop claiming to be a conservative while spreading far right propaganda.

Or continue trying to gaslight everyone into thinking you're a moderate independent. How's that working out for you?

I don't think you actually know what my claims are. Based on reasonable inference, I'm pretty sure that you've decided that you can read my mind and find the secret coded hidden messages in my posts, and that you are in possession of extraordinary perceptive powers that lets you translate my hidden messages so that you know what I actually secretly mean.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You complained about people using the term 'literal nazis' instead of 'figurative'. So I pointed to Trump calling people protesting under actual Nazi flags "Fine people".

That right there is the subterfuge. Trump condemned the white supremacists. Trump acknowledged that there were fine people on both the protest and counter-protest sides excluding the white supremacists.

No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

However, the accuracy of what Trump did claim – that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the 2017 Unite the Right debacle – is in question.

www.snopes.com

 

[wareyin]

I don't think you actually know what my claims are. Based on reasonable inference, I'm pretty sure that you've decided that you can read my mind and find the secret coded hidden messages in my posts, and that you are in possession of extraordinary perceptive powers that lets you translate my hidden messages so that you know what I actually secretly mean.

No, I am merely reading the words you post. I repeat my question: how is your attempt to convince the forum that you are a moderate independent going, despite your far right stances on J6, your claim that it is bad to call MAGA Nazis despite their own chats admitting to loving Hitler, your stance on denying trans people the use of public bathrooms, and your claim that elections become more secure if we just accede to the demands of the guy who staged a failed coup?

And now you are carrying water for the claim that Trump didn’t call people marching under Nazi flags in Charlottesville "very fine people"? It was a white supremacist rally organized by white supremacists. The idea that there were "innocent statue enthusiasts" who just happened to be standing next to people chanting "blood and soil" is a fantasy. Even Snopes had to walk that back with an editor's note clarifying that the rally was led and attended by white supremacists, making Trump’s characterization objectively wrong. Defending that slow, weak, and ultimately meaningless "denouncement" as proof of moderation just reinforces the far right view you claim not to hold. Seriously, is there ANY far right propaganda talking point you won't push?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I am merely reading the words you post. I repeat my question: how is your attempt to convince the forum that you are a moderate independent going, despite your far right stances on J6, your claim that it is bad to call MAGA Nazis despite their own chats admitting to loving Hitler, your stance on denying trans people the use of public bathrooms, and your claim that elections become more secure if we just accede to the demands of the guy who staged a failed coup?

How about you explain what you believe my views to be?

1) What is my view of J6, and in what way does it constitute "far right"?
2) Have I said that it's bad to call self-proclaimed nazis "nazis", or have I only opposed calling any and every republican a "nazi"?
3) Show where I have requested denying people with transgender identities the ability to use public bathrooms in totality.

And now you are carrying water for the claim that Trump didn’t call people marching under Nazi flags in Charlottesville "very fine people"? It was a white supremacist rally organized by white supremacists. The idea that there were "innocent statue enthusiasts" who just happened to be standing next to people chanting "blood and soil" is a fantasy. Even Snopes had to walk that back with an editor's note clarifying that the rally was led and attended by white supremacists, making Trump’s characterization objectively wrong. Defending that slow, weak, and ultimately meaningless "denouncement" as proof of moderation just reinforces the far right view you claim not to hold. Seriously, is there ANY far right propaganda talking point you won't push?

Even Snopes acknowledges that Trump did NOT call any white supremacists "fine people".

FFS, over the past decade, there have been extremists of all stripes out protesting all sorts of things. Do you think that anyone who showed up to a Floyd protest, and happened to be standing next to someone actually advocating for the elimination of all police was therefore advocating for the exact same thing? Do you think that every single person out protesting Israel's heavy-handedness in Gaza was anti-semitic jihadis because they were standing next to someone who was genuinely calling for all jews to be exterminated?

You extend boundless nuance toward those with whom you agree, and none at all for those with whom you disagree. When the side you support is setting police stations on fire with people inside them, engaging in rampant arson, vandalism, and property damage directed toward bystanders, they're "mostly peaceful" and you take umbrage if anyone uses too broad a brush when talking about it. But when it's residents protesting the destruction of historical monuments you're sure happy to insist that every single one of them is a white supremacist. When it's large groups of college students chanting "from the river to the sea" and calling for global intifada, well, that's not what they really actually mean and it's just a few so they should be ignored and we should focus on all of the good people out there.

See, here's the difference: You have selective grace and nuance, which you only apply to those you view as being on "your side"; you have no nuance and only contempt for anyone that you view as "not on your side" even if they don't actually oppose you. I, on the other hand, apply my principles objectively even when doing so is unpopular. I value factual, objective, realistic understandings of what's going on.

 

[wareyin]

How about you explain what you believe my views to be?

1) What is my view of J6, and in what way does it constitute "far right"?

You said the rioters actually "wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm." Like all far right attempts to sanitize history, you are trying to minimize actual far right atrocities.

2) Have I said that it's bad to call self-proclaimed nazis "nazis", or have I only opposed calling any and every republican a "nazi"?

yes, no.

3) Show where I have requested denying people with transgender identities the ability to use public bathrooms in totality.

In this very thread, when you pretended women run around their bathrooms naked and claimed the only reason trans people are trying to use bathrooms is to see naked women.

Even Snopes acknowledges that Trump did NOT call any white supremacists "fine people".

There were NO protesters on the side of Unite the Right that were not white supremacists. Trump said there were very fine people on that side. Therefore, yes he ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well did say that the exclusively white supremacist rally that was organized and attended by exclusively white supremacists had "very fine people" on the white supremacist side.

FFS, over the past decade, there have been extremists of all stripes out protesting all sorts of things. Do you think that anyone who showed up to a Floyd protest, and happened to be standing next to someone actually advocating for the elimination of all police was therefore advocating for the exact same thing? Do you think that every single person out protesting Israel's heavy-handedness in Gaza was anti-semitic jihadis because they were standing next to someone who was genuinely calling for all jews to be exterminated?

You extend boundless nuance toward those with whom you agree, and none at all for those with whom you disagree. When the side you support is setting police stations on fire with people inside them, engaging in rampant arson, vandalism, and property damage directed toward bystanders, they're "mostly peaceful" and you take umbrage if anyone uses too broad a brush when talking about it. But when it's residents protesting the destruction of historical monuments you're sure happy to insist that every single one of them is a white supremacist. When it's large groups of college students chanting "from the river to the sea" and calling for global intifada, well, that's not what they really actually mean and it's just a few so they should be ignored and we should focus on all of the good people out there.

See, here's the difference: You have selective grace and nuance, which you only apply to those you view as being on "your side"; you have no nuance and only contempt for anyone that you view as "not on your side" even if they don't actually oppose you. I, on the other hand, apply my principles objectively even when doing so is unpopular. I value factual, objective, realistic understandings of what's going on.

Your attempt to pivot to George Floyd or Gaza is a pathetic false equivalence. The 2020 protests were an organic, sustained response to police murdering citizens. Data shows over 93% of those thousands of protests were entirely peaceful, but you bring up the handful that typically had far right agitators arrested for arson or what have you every single time the far right is called out for another act of extremist violence. Your attempt to tar millions of people with the actions of a few is the exact "broad brush" you claim to hate.

Charlottesville and J6, by contrast, were planned, permit holding, or incited events. If you go to a rally advertised with Nazi imagery that was organized by Nazis, march with those Nazis, and stay while they chant Nazi slogans, you're a Nazi. If you break into the Capitol Building and smear feces on the walls while looking to hang Mike Pence because Trump tweeted that Pence followed the law, you're not a tourist. BLM was a national call for accountability, Charlottesville was a planned display of hate, and J6 was a planned and attempted coup. Your "selective grace" is just a refusal to hold the side you clearly support accountable. You aren't "objectively" applying principles, you're just working overtime to provide cover for far right extremists.

 

[Segnosaur]

You complained about people using the term 'literal nazis' instead of 'figurative'. So I pointed to Trump calling people protesting under actual Nazi flags "Fine people".

That right there is the subterfuge. Trump condemned the white supremacists.

Yes, and?

This would not be the first time that Trump lied about his true beliefs and intentions.

If someone says "nazis are fine people", all the later condemnation of white supremacists should be seen as nothing more than damage control. (Especially given Trump's later actions, such as having lunch with Nick Fuentes.)

Trump acknowledged that there were fine people on both the protest and counter-protest sides excluding the white supremacists.

Once again, there were multiple people on the right-wing side that were carrying swastika flags. The group (as a whole) were chanting nazi slogans like "jews will not replace us". Not sure about you, but if I go anywhere where people are carrying nazi flags (and its not a world war 2 re-enactment), I would not stick around and join in, I would recognize that "those people do not share my values" and leave. Yet here you have a bunch of protesters who saw the nazi flags, and thought "you know what, these are the type of people I want to protest with".

There is no such thing as a 'fine person' who sees someone carrying a swastika flag and decides "I'm marching with this person". If you see a guy carrying a swastika and willingly join him with nazi chants, you ARE a nazi.

No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

However, the accuracy of what Trump did claim – that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the 2017 Unite the Right debacle – is in question.

www.snopes.com

Yes, I am aware that snopes marked the "trump called neo-nazis fine people" as false.

But you know what? Snopes is a pretty good resource, but THEY ARE NOT PERFECT. In fact, they actually have a section of their web site dedicated to "fake myths" just to show that not even they should be trusted.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That right there is the subterfuge. Trump condemned the white supremacists. Trump acknowledged that there were fine people on both the protest and counter-protest sides excluding the white supremacists.

No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

However, the accuracy of what Trump did claim – that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the 2017 Unite the Right debacle – is in question.

www.snopes.com

Unite the Right was a white supremacist rally, and was commonly understood to be such well ahead of time. What participating groups "excluding the white supremacists" are you thinking of that could reasonably be called "fine people"? The assorted tagalongs who showed up simply because it was all so exciting? Who?

ETA: Here is a list according to the Wikipedia article of groups participating in the rally. Which ones were the "very fine people"?

• Nationalist Front
  • League of the South
  • Identity Dixie
  • Traditionalist Worker Party
  • Vanguard America
  • National Socialist Movement
• Ku Klux Klan (Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan)
• The Daily Stormer
• The Right Stuff
• Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights
• Identity Evropa
• Rise Above Movement
• American Guard
• Detroit Right Wings
• True Cascadia
• Alt-Right Montreal
• Hammer Brothers
• Anti-Communist Action

American militia movement

• Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia
• New York Light Foot Militia
• Virginia Minutemen Militia
• 3 Percenters