Trump has some balls calling Ted a liar. If this is the best America has to offer, we need to start letting foreigners run for the US presidency.
But they're right - everything they do is justified by this fact.SuperJail Warden wrote:
This campaign just keeps getting classier. It is truly amazing how nasty Trump and his supporters can be.
Fuck Israel
Broad stroke to paint. Some people are just sick of politicians saying the same shit over and over every election cycle. I know I am.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/ … index.htmlDonald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was arrested and charged in Jupiter, Florida, with simple battery of former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, according to police.
The Jupiter Police Department told CNN that Lewandowski was arrested Tuesday morning after turning himself in on the misdemeanor charge of simple battery.
They said Lewandowski has been released and his initial court appearance is scheduled for May 4. The department also released new video that shows the alleged incident from an overhead angle.
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks and one of Lewandowski's lawyers, Scott Richardson, both released a statement Tuesday saying Lewandowski is "absolutely innocent of this charge," and will plead not guilty.
"He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court. He is completely confident that he will be exonerated," the statement said.
I don't like Trump but charging this guy for yanking a woman by the arm is silly.
that's what battery is. assault is even less. silly but so it is with offences against the person... if someone can be assed to press charges.
pretty much this. Assault is just a manifestation in the victim's mind there will be physical violence. Silence can constitute as assault as well.uziq wrote:
that's what battery is. assault is even less. silly but so it is with offences against the person... if someone can be assed to press charges.
the only defence against battery in this case is if the action was within everyday common movements. eg, accidental bumping into someone on the street isn't battery.
even touching a person is battery.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
Has Bernie Sanders the democratic socialist said anything about the harm gentrification does to poor neighborhoods? I have been googling for awhile and haven't found a single word from his or his campaign. I wonder why he doesn't talk about this.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-o … rimination
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie … le-future/
your google skills must be severely lacking? I literally typed "bernie sanders" "gentrification" into the google machine and clicked the second link (which was a link to reddit asking the same question).
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie … le-future/
your google skills must be severely lacking? I literally typed "bernie sanders" "gentrification" into the google machine and clicked the second link (which was a link to reddit asking the same question).
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
You got anything directly from the man himself this election cycle and not an analysis from when he was a mayor? I will wait.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-racial-justice/#housing-discrimination
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie … le-future/
your google skills must be severely lacking? I literally typed "bernie sanders" "gentrification" into the google machine and clicked the second link (which was a link to reddit asking the same question).
How does one prevent land from changing hands? You going to landmark entire neighborhoods and force the residents to stay put so you have an authentic experience the next time you drive through with your doors locked? Retard.
Last edited by Jay (2016-03-31 19:16:28)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Because it's completely irrelevant if he can accomplish the rest of his plans.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Has Bernie Sanders the democratic socialist said anything about the harm gentrification does to poor neighborhoods? I have been googling for awhile and haven't found a single word from his or his campaign. I wonder why he doesn't talk about this.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
Gentrification is a lot more relevant to most American's lives than half of Bernie's plans.DrunkFace wrote:
Because it's completely irrelevant if he can accomplish the rest of his plans.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Has Bernie Sanders the democratic socialist said anything about the harm gentrification does to poor neighborhoods? I have been googling for awhile and haven't found a single word from his or his campaign. I wonder why he doesn't talk about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political … ie_Sanders
Paid parent leave, legal marijuana, off shore tax haven, death penalty...not as important as thousands perhaps millions of poor people being displaced.
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
macbeth just hates hipsters.DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
I said half of his plans you retard.DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
Do you even know how gentrification works? These areas aren't improved for the benefit of the people living there. The housing gets torn down, new luxury units get put up, rents go up, poor people have to move out. The areas are improved but by bringing people from way outside the area to live there. And what happens to the poor people who were displaced? They have to go somewhere. They move to suburbs or smaller cities and then start the cycle of poverty some other place. But they are then disconnected from the social support systems in their community that existed in the slum. It makes it worse for them.
It would be nice if all the taxation, imposed administrative load and, where it exists, unnecessarily punitive regulation would loosen the screws on business owners to make things like increased wages and company-sponsored insurance less of a blue-skies-only ordeal. It's one thing to stick it to the mega-corporations, but there are quite a few startups and even veteran small-business owners who are just overwhelmed.
You don't really understand how stuff works do you? Getting people out of the slums and into where exactly? Are they not still on the bottom? Is handing them more money going to propel then into the middle class? Where does the current middle class go? Do they all become rich or do they become poorer?DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
Prices will rise and wipe out the gains in income. The poor will still be poor and struggling. The former middle class will watch as their earning power evaporates and they slide closer to the poverty line. The rich? They thank you for the higher rent they can now charge.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes you have a point. The rich in America have been sucking your country dry for 50years via corruption and now own almost everything. In a less corrupt system that increase in rent would be going to the middle class not the rich. So the only solution is massive wealth redistribution. No income tax on anyone earning less then 20k and a top rate of inexcess of 65% for those on 500k. Estate tax of 50% for anything over 1mil with appropriate measure to ensure loopholes are closed. Capital gains tax of 50% on everything baring your personal home. Free health care, free education, no sales taxes on necessities. Basically make life as easy for the poor/middle class as possible and tax the fuck out of the top 5%. Sounds extreme I know, but there's no other way to quickly turn around 50 years of economic rape.Jay wrote:
You don't really understand how stuff works do you? Getting people out of the slums and into where exactly? Are they not still on the bottom? Is handing them more money going to propel then into the middle class? Where does the current middle class go? Do they all become rich or do they become poorer?DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
Prices will rise and wipe out the gains in income. The poor will still be poor and struggling. The former middle class will watch as their earning power evaporates and they slide closer to the poverty line. The rich? They thank you for the higher rent they can now charge.
Also increasing minimum wage is not going to be wiped out by price increases. Many studies have show this, 10% increase in wages had about a 0.5% increase in prices and doubling wages had about a 5% increase in prices.
As for your current middle class, they're already poor. Half your country has a networth less then 50k. The top 1% owns more then the bottom 95%, 12 times the bottom 60% and 200 times the bottom 40%. Wages since 1970 have pretty much stagnated only going up about 10% in real terms while productivity and GDP per capita has more then doubled.
Gentrification is such a non issue if you can get wealth inequality back to a reasonable level.
OkDrunkFace wrote:
Yes you have a point. The rich in America have been sucking your country dry for 50years via corruption and now own almost everything. In a less corrupt system that increase in rent would be going to the middle class not the rich. So the only solution is massive wealth redistribution. No income tax on anyone earning less then 20k and a top rate of inexcess of 65% for those on 500k. Estate tax of 50% for anything over 1mil with appropriate measure to ensure loopholes are closed. Capital gains tax of 50% on everything baring your personal home. Free health care, free education, no sales taxes on necessities. Basically make life as easy for the poor/middle class as possible and tax the fuck out of the top 5%. Sounds extreme I know, but there's no other way to quickly turn around 50 years of economic rape.Jay wrote:
You don't really understand how stuff works do you? Getting people out of the slums and into where exactly? Are they not still on the bottom? Is handing them more money going to propel then into the middle class? Where does the current middle class go? Do they all become rich or do they become poorer?DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
Prices will rise and wipe out the gains in income. The poor will still be poor and struggling. The former middle class will watch as their earning power evaporates and they slide closer to the poverty line. The rich? They thank you for the higher rent they can now charge.
Also increasing minimum wage is not going to be wiped out by price increases. Many studies have show this, 10% increase in wages had about a 0.5% increase in prices and doubling wages had about a 5% increase in prices.
As for your current middle class, they're already poor. Half your country has a networth less then 50k. The top 1% owns more then the bottom 95%, 12 times the bottom 60% and 200 times the bottom 40%. Wages since 1970 have pretty much stagnated only going up about 10% in real terms while productivity and GDP per capita has more then doubled.
Gentrification is such a non issue if you can get wealth inequality back to a reasonable level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
it's right on his website itself that was set up for this election cycleSuperJail Warden wrote:
You got anything directly from the man himself this election cycle and not an analysis from when he was a mayor? I will wait.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-racial-justice/#housing-discrimination
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie … le-future/
your google skills must be severely lacking? I literally typed "bernie sanders" "gentrification" into the google machine and clicked the second link (which was a link to reddit asking the same question).
Bringing up his mayoral experience and congressional record bolsters his claim that he actually has done something about it. Sorry he hasn't publicly talked about it in the last 6 months. That clearly means he doesn't care.Yikes. I guess we are still quite segregated. What are some of the causes?
There are several factors that contribute to housing and residential segregation. Let’s take a common one: gentrification.
As a result of disinvestment on the heels of “white flight,” cities can withdraw public funds and services like building maintenance, garbage collection, and school funding in areas deemed to be low priority. Need an example? Check out Detroit.
This leads to deteriorating property values and quality of life. But if and when money floods back into these neighborhoods, it can leave poorer residents without access to capital behind — forcing people out of their homes when they can’t afford steep increases in rent or property taxes.
Other factors to consider are real-estate discrimination, socioeconomic status, and the lasting legacy of America’s discriminatory housing policies.
What has Bernie done about it?
He has been a longtime advocate for fair and affordable housing. In his 1981 mayoral campaign in Burlington, Vt., he ran against the incumbent’s plans to raise property taxes and “proposed raising taxes on commercial property instead.”
Once in office, the city required property owners to give residents two years notice before their apartments could be converted to condos as well as giving renters the preemptive right to buy converted units. Bernie prevented landowners from bulldozing affordable-housing units unless they first built an equal number of new units, and he implemented economic development projects and a communal land trust for affordable housing — policies considered radical in the early ‘80s but which are more commonplace today.
As a senator, he’s fought to create the Health Trust Fund, which targets excess profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide a new dedicated revenue source for states to finance very-low-income rental housing construction and rehabilitation projects.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it's right on his website itself that was set up for this election cycleSuperJail Warden wrote:
You got anything directly from the man himself this election cycle and not an analysis from when he was a mayor? I will wait.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-racial-justice/#housing-discrimination
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie … le-future/
your google skills must be severely lacking? I literally typed "bernie sanders" "gentrification" into the google machine and clicked the second link (which was a link to reddit asking the same question).Bringing up his mayoral experience and congressional record bolsters his claim that he actually has done something about it. Sorry he hasn't publicly talked about it in the last 6 months. That clearly means he doesn't care.Yikes. I guess we are still quite segregated. What are some of the causes?
There are several factors that contribute to housing and residential segregation. Let’s take a common one: gentrification.
As a result of disinvestment on the heels of “white flight,” cities can withdraw public funds and services like building maintenance, garbage collection, and school funding in areas deemed to be low priority. Need an example? Check out Detroit.
This leads to deteriorating property values and quality of life. But if and when money floods back into these neighborhoods, it can leave poorer residents without access to capital behind — forcing people out of their homes when they can’t afford steep increases in rent or property taxes.
Other factors to consider are real-estate discrimination, socioeconomic status, and the lasting legacy of America’s discriminatory housing policies.
What has Bernie done about it?
He has been a longtime advocate for fair and affordable housing. In his 1981 mayoral campaign in Burlington, Vt., he ran against the incumbent’s plans to raise property taxes and “proposed raising taxes on commercial property instead.”
Once in office, the city required property owners to give residents two years notice before their apartments could be converted to condos as well as giving renters the preemptive right to buy converted units. Bernie prevented landowners from bulldozing affordable-housing units unless they first built an equal number of new units, and he implemented economic development projects and a communal land trust for affordable housing — policies considered radical in the early ‘80s but which are more commonplace today.
As a senator, he’s fought to create the Health Trust Fund, which targets excess profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide a new dedicated revenue source for states to finance very-low-income rental housing construction and rehabilitation projects.
If you can find it on his official website: https://berniesanders.com/issues/ that would be great.
He doesn't bring it up because his supporters by and large support gentrification programs. Even among liberals and socialist, there is a belief that gentrification is a good thing. And since Bernie is an opportunist, I am not surprised he doesn't talk about it.
A tax over 50% is very very counter-intuitive.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes you have a point. The rich in America have been sucking your country dry for 50years via corruption and now own almost everything. In a less corrupt system that increase in rent would be going to the middle class not the rich. So the only solution is massive wealth redistribution. No income tax on anyone earning less then 20k and a top rate of inexcess of 65% for those on 500k. Estate tax of 50% for anything over 1mil with appropriate measure to ensure loopholes are closed. Capital gains tax of 50% on everything baring your personal home. Free health care, free education, no sales taxes on necessities. Basically make life as easy for the poor/middle class as possible and tax the fuck out of the top 5%. Sounds extreme I know, but there's no other way to quickly turn around 50 years of economic rape.Jay wrote:
You don't really understand how stuff works do you? Getting people out of the slums and into where exactly? Are they not still on the bottom? Is handing them more money going to propel then into the middle class? Where does the current middle class go? Do they all become rich or do they become poorer?DrunkFace wrote:
Minimum wage being $15, no more bankruptcy for getting sick or an education, these people should be able to afford to live outside of the slums.
How is improving public areas and offering more services ever a bad thing?
But your idea is much better, keep the slums so we can stash all the poor people there, you're just and asshole.
Prices will rise and wipe out the gains in income. The poor will still be poor and struggling. The former middle class will watch as their earning power evaporates and they slide closer to the poverty line. The rich? They thank you for the higher rent they can now charge.
Also increasing minimum wage is not going to be wiped out by price increases. Many studies have show this, 10% increase in wages had about a 0.5% increase in prices and doubling wages had about a 5% increase in prices.
As for your current middle class, they're already poor. Half your country has a networth less then 50k. The top 1% owns more then the bottom 95%, 12 times the bottom 60% and 200 times the bottom 40%. Wages since 1970 have pretty much stagnated only going up about 10% in real terms while productivity and GDP per capita has more then doubled.
Gentrification is such a non issue if you can get wealth inequality back to a reasonable level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Estate taxes are fucking dumb, that's why we got rid of them in Aus. Rich people are smart enough to dodge estate taxes through private trusts and corporate structures.
why is it counter-intuitive? marginal tax rates were in place in the US up until the latter half of the 20th century. The reduction of tax rates on the super rich nicely coincided with greater wealth stratification. That's a bad thing for democracy in general
Because people won't really want to work when they're not taking half of money they made? Wasn't a super high tax rate essentially put in to tax the shit out of Rockefeller? Why is it even necessary to tax people at 50% income? You're essentially punishing people for being too successful. It's very counter-intuitive.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
why is it counter-intuitive? marginal tax rates were in place in the US up until the latter half of the 20th century. The reduction of tax rates on the super rich nicely coincided with greater wealth stratification. That's a bad thing for democracy in general
What about corporation taxes? If it's not in line with income taxes a lot of smart rich people would rather have their assets in a corporate trust and that pays out just below a certain amount.
haha i've never in my life met someone who doesn't want to work as hard or make more money because they might get taxed more.
You make a valid point regarding corporate taxes and the schemes rich people use to weasel their way out of taxes. Any tax plan needs to address the labrynthian and obtuse tax laws we currently have on the bokos.
You make a valid point regarding corporate taxes and the schemes rich people use to weasel their way out of taxes. Any tax plan needs to address the labrynthian and obtuse tax laws we currently have on the bokos.