Taxes (tarrifs) are passed through to the consumer, which means Americans will be paying for it. What Trump is suggesting is to tax us once to build it, and then a second time so the feds can have their play money. It is possible they use the tarrifs to rebate the money to taxpayers or to retire the debt in which case we'd only be paying for it once, call me skeptical though.
You've got no leg to stand on HH. I have no problem in an individual being punished for harming their children. Purposeful starvation is a legitimate example of someone harming their children. You are the one advocating 'do-gooding' by the government.
I'm no Twitter pro myself but I do have some experience. I think the best way to do it would be to have one main tweet that people would retweet and favorite. This would show up in Trump's interaction feed displayed with the number of retweets/favorites, likely drawing attention to the tweet. You could then have the people retweeting/favoriting send their own *similar* message. Or maybe better/less spammy would be to have 5 or so main tweets that everyone then retweets/favorites.
The main account(s) should be the people with the most followers. Better would be a celebrity (Twitter celebrity (anonymous) or media celebrity) supporter of Castle as the main account, or for such an individual to retweet the main account's tweets to give it more views.
That is a flat out lie. In Florida, for instance, there will be twelve people. There is not only Trump and Clinton, there is Basiago, and Castle, and Clinton, and De La Fuente, and Duncan, and Fox, and Gyurko, and Johnson, and Kotlikoff, and Stein, and Trump, and Valdivia.
Disrespect for the voting process? You really typed that? You can't be that dishonest. Voting your conscience is not a disrespect for the process and you know it. What is disrespectful is trying to tell people they should vote for someone they disagree with. The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't want to win.
I dunno, maybe the JK in your handle is for "just kidding", and everything you post is sarcasm?
No, I may be mistaken but I mean things such as supporting the reinstatement of Glass-Stegal. But more to the point, I don't think Ron or Rand would be using the 'fact that Hillary supports multiculturalism' as an argument against voting for her.
I'm not so sure that this 'democrats are going to let in 20 Million illegals and let them vote' is anything more than a ruse to distract away from (accomplish?) the fact that Trump is reaching into the masses of ignorant former non-voters that we really do not want voting for his base. I don't know much about Amash but I think if Rand was up their today he would be pulling people from left right and center and I think the GOP down ballot would be benefited as well.
Definitely nothing to implicate McAfee as a bad guy. This guy's first partner that accepted the plea deal didn't know that the intention wasn't to build a viable company until far into the endeavour. And,
Even if it is the case, is 'affiliate trading without disclosure' fraudulent? Or is that a rule made by the SEC to babysit the investor who won't do his homework? Just because someone flashes something in your face doesn't mean you have to buy it.
You are making a very far leap painting McAfee as a bad individual I think. Even if there is hairy shit McAfee might not have been a willing player.
good lord that article you linked to in that thread was shit. They try to deduce that his motives were bad because he was willing to accept $300k in cash and a ton of stocks valued at $.49 per share for his company. A good CEO will put himself in a position that his 'hitting it big' means that shareholders will also be hitting it big.
meh. The lawsuit against the company seems frivolous. Someone lost some money and now they are alleging that the standard denotation 'these are forward looking statements...' does not apply to the fact the NYSE may not permit the issuance of stock, and it turned out they did not. The only way McAfee is related is that the stock issuance was going to go to buy out McAfee's company and at that point he would've become chair of the company. The release that McAfee would become chair and his company and products would be purchased led market participants to buy shares. If the company would've been allowed to do the stock issuance there would be no law suit. It is a risk investors take. At least in this case they weren't dependant on some county board voting to approve a land use permit.
McAfee retweeted a twitter banner I made for his supporters and got me over 1000 downloads on it. That is the kind of character I like. Someone who is willing to help us help them.
From what I can tell they don't account for Trump's tarrifs either. The model has way to many variables and assumes to much for me to take anything from the numbers. But the central thesis is interesting, that foreign investors will invest in more productive assets than US taxpayers and therefore it is better to extract more wealth from US citizens to pay for government operations than it is to have lower taxes and bigger deficits with foreign investors investing in US bonds.
Fair enough, I should've put 'More caucuses for example?'. I don't know the best way to do it but I'd like to see the economic leftism pushed back to the left. It seems like it is one area where Ron had a big effect on at least the rhetoric of the GOPers. Trump is not talking about spending cuts and he is promoting trade and labor protectionism.
^^My thoughts too.
Unless this is just the start of the crazy train. ie Duck Dynasty V Tom Cruise 2020
I'm realizing more how much it sucks that the rule change to disallow crossover votes in the first few states failed. There are probably some good rule changes that could be made to get a better candidate. More caucuses for example. I don't think there really is an effective way to push Trumpkins (more importantly the ideology) out though.
What you are describing is the essence of government in my opinion. Government is all about granting special access, favors, and beneficiaries. How is rewarding the "Friends of Bill" any different than the state taking your money and rewarding your neighbour with protection? Not saying that you are necessarily advocating for the state to do that, but I do not see any differences between the two. 1,6, and 7 describe breaking unjust laws, I do agree there should not be a two tier legal system. 4 and 5 are irrelevant to me. For someone looking for good governance I could see how this list could have an effect in that they want a government that will spend money in the way that they want it, but I am far past that desire and expectation.
If we have an actuary here they could probably explain the exact calculation that effects the business man's decision on whether to drug test or not.
There are few industries where government mandates the employer to drug test; trucking, shipping, nuclear power plant operation I'm sure. But in general it is a matter of rates.
And assuming the government does not dictate to the actuaries and insurers what that rate adjustment is, it is reasonable to assume it would continue in the future. Even the businessman who does not provide insurance to his employees in case they get injured on the job, it is likely he would have insurance to cover his means of production and his resources that will be used to that end. And being that it is his employees who employ his means of production and handle his resources I think it is reasonable to assume that who the businessman employs would still effect his rates. And that businesses that drug screen employees would benefit from lower rates.
I think there is plenty of reason to think Russia did this. Getting someone so economically retarded as Trump into the Whitehouse would do a great deal to weaken the US and therefore it's power to exert influence globally. Could very well be an American Trumpeter it Bernster as well. The greatest insights so far as I can tell from the releases is that Hillary is not as populace as she tries to make herself out to be. It hasn't been a criminality issue. And so, it makes sense to me that the releases are indeed intended to influence the election.?
What would Hillary have to lose by not participating? Compared to how much Trump would have to lose by debating against far more principled candidates.
I could see Trump making a tweet about it with it being contingent on Hillary also agreeing. And when Hillary no doubt declines Trump would go on and on about how Hillary is to scurred to debate them. I give it next to zero chance of happening. $.02