Vance wanted to be able to lie with impunity and NOT get fact checked on those lies!
"On the debate stage, Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost...That moment tells you the most important thing about Vance: When democracy is in peril, he will bow to Trump, not to the people or the Constitution. He must never be given that chance."
This is a really powerful new ad. Please watch and share!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥#HarrisWalz2024
— Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 (@joncoopertweets) October 2, 2024
pic.twitter.com/5a9FPhpdTD
VANCE IS AS MUCH OF A HYPOCRITICAL FLIP-FLOPPER AS THE SPINELESS NIKKI HALEY IS:
In this video montage, JD Vance says:
— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) October 2, 2024
1. He “never liked” Trump.
2. Trump never “tells the truth”.
3. Trump is a “total fraud”.
4. Trump doesn’t “care about folks” .
5. He “can’t stomach” Trump.
pic.twitter.com/mR7lU4lkCw
31 comments:
Vance stated: “Trump saved the Affordable Care Act” In fact, Trump tried repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It was John McCain who made that last minute vote to save this important piece of legislation.
Vance stated that Trump peacefully relinquished his power on January 20.
When pressed by Walz on whether Trump won the 2020 election, he refused to answer.
Trump, of course, did not win, and along with Vance, continues to lie about his loss.
Trump can order Congress to do stuff? Who knew? I always thought that there was a separation of powers...
You don't pay attention, do you.
Trump says ‘blame it on me’ if border bill fails
"While speaking to an animated crowd of backers in Las Vegas, Nev., Trump, the current GOP front-runner, appeared to welcome the potential blame he could face if successfully persuading Republicans in CongresS to tank the bipartisan border security bill."
“He (JD Vance) will be remembered for that final exchange about, ‘Did Trump lose the election?’ and he doesn’t answer. His technique is to not answer. It makes him the very first vice presidential candidate in history who doesn’t know who won the last presidential election.”
@Lawrence
Both of them did a good job and Walz was not the train wreck he was touted to be. The ACA was and still is a mess and trump tried to end it but failed so to say trump saved it is not true. Walz said illegal border “crossings are down compared to when Donald Trump left office,” looking at Harris’ entire time as vice president, illegal border crossings are up substantially.
I thought walz was more entertaining with his gee wizz looks and scribbling all the time. I was not a vance supporter but think his knowledge and the way he handled himself showed he would be a good president. Walz is like joey b, nice old guy but not a leader and gets confused because I guess he didn't march off to was or was at Tiananmen Square.
I pose a question to you since this is a big talking point with the democrats. What is their fair share billionaires should pay. All we want is for billionaires to pay their fair share but no one says how much their fair share is. Why not have everyone pay their fair share.
Wallace: JD Vance was still unable to say that Trump lost the election in 2020. And in that moment, I think everything that he did for 88 minutes was lost and wiped out by that inability to tell the truth
" I was not a vance supporter but think his knowledge and the way he handled himself showed he would be a good president."
Vance has a little over a year and a half in government. Before that he was a vulture capitalist and an author. He's a flip-flopper extraordinaire; he called Trump "American Hitler." And he is on record for wanting a federal ban on abortion, and he was unable to say Biden won the 2020 election.
LASTLY, AND WORST OF ALL: "Vance would have asked for new electors instead of certifying 2020 election results."
For your information, SKUD, that is not just illegal -- AGAINST THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, but it is traitorous to the US Constitution. There is absolutely no authority in our laws to do such an illegal thing. Yet Vance has said before the country that he would be okay with breaking the law and installing the loser of an election.
You think he would make a good POTUS? He's willing to break the law of the land to install HIS favored politician, not the will of the people's choice?
It's difficult to read your words and know you and I live in the same country and believe in the same laws, when you've just admitted you'd be okay with a man who would betray the Constitution and everything this country stands for, just because he has an "R" after his name?
What happened to you?
skud, it is difficult for me to answer anything else in your comment, since your opinion on Vance shocked me to my core.
Wait. I just reread you comment, because I still could not believe you'd state such an outrageous claim: that Vance would make a good POTUS.
And I read this little gem by you: "Walz is like joey b, nice old guy but not a leader and gets confused because I guess he didn't march off to was or was at Tiananmen Square."
You bring up a mistake Gov. Walz made about being in Tiananmen, when the mistake was TWO MONTHS!
Yet you have no problem with saying a man who would have BROKEN THE LAW TO INSTALL THE LOSER OF THE 2020 ELECTION is good presidential material.
Either you did NOT pay attention to Vance's admission of his willingness to trash the Constitution in service to a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, tax cheat, and guy who called military personnel who serve their country, "losers and suckers," or you've debased yourself for party loyalty along with the MAGA cultists.
It is stunning! And I understand more fully how low we as a people have fallen because of the criminal Trump and what he has done to unthinking Americans!
from "big tree" on Democratic Underground:
"...election denial is either a Trump delusion or a MAGA lie. Most Americans are barely tolerating Trump's fantastical claims about a 'stolen election' that he still complains about in public at every opportunity.
Even the Republicans who have aided him in that effort to overturn the result of that election are smart enough to stop drawing attention to it. But Vance is a stupid man who is being given some benefit of the doubt by some by pointing to how 'slick' he is when he lies; the same thing Donald Trump has made a political career out of."
Laurence Tribe
JD Vance’s absurd answer to how he and Trump would deal with insurers refusing to cover preexisting conditions? “We already have a law that bans that.” Yeah, we do. It’s called Obamacare!
SKUD: "Walz is like joey b, nice old guy..."
Tim Walz is 60 years old. Probably younger than you, skud! And he has more experience in politics, especially running a big state, Minnesota, than Vance who's been in government for a little over 1 1/2 years as a US Senator, half that time campaigning for the vp position. Vance has no idea how our government works, because he admitted he would have used fake electors instead of the electors the states LEGALLY sent to the US Capitol to ratify the electoral votes.
VANCE ADMITTED HE WOULD BE WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW TO KEEP THE LOSER OF AN ELECTION IN POWER. NEVER FORGET THAT!
In any other time in our country's history, anyone who made that claim would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town as a traitor to our country!
What happened to us?
His solution to school massacres - make the doors stronger with better locks and make the windows stronger. Does he own a construction company too?
Vance not admitting trump lost was not his finest moment. That is like kamala not admitting joey b was incompetent two years ago. He stated our energy production was at an all time high but his running mate wants to ban petroleum and support the Chinese efforts to go battery because they produce them.
Sending loves your way Shaw Kenawe. Not an easy post to read, and I'm certain not an easy post to reply to comments too.
skud asked what's a fair share for the oligarchs to pay. Here/now I'd say all their profits for the past twenty years as they were stolen from the workers. Fair is fair, correct? The top brass may have the final say but they aren't running the machines or cleaning the floors. It used to be that those at the top shared what was left over with the workers who made the profits happen in the first place. Then greed stepped in (personally I attribute the acceptance of greed to the introduction of processed cocaine. She did show me exactly what She planned to do to those who abused her gifts and I believed Her) and suddenly it was cool to shaft the worker bees. They aren't the genius - the head of the firm is the genius and they deserve all the accolades, earned or not. Or at least that's how I've interpreted events as they unfolded before me.
I liked Walz's ending - to paraphrase What is done to the least of me is done to me. I'm not Christian but that specific verse has always resonated with me. It is central to my beliefs that I recognize and honor the deity within.
Ah - it came to me, why skud thinks Vance would be a good President but not Walz - skud conflates authoritarianism with leadership. They are not the same at all. Strict is not authoritarianism by the way. Authoritarianism is It's My Way or the Highway. Had a few of those in my life and I just don't see the need to be around such folk. Exhausting really.
"Vance not admitting trump lost was not his finest moment. That is like kamala not admitting joey b was incompetent two years ago."
No, skud. It. Is. Not!
It is not even close as a comparison. It is shocking that you think overturning a free and fair election is comparable to an entirely made-up supposition about what VP Harris thinks about Pres. Biden's competence.
You never addressed any of my points in my answer to your comments about Vance and your opinion that he'd make a good POTUS. It's as though you come here, make unverified or made-up claims, and don't bother reading what I wrote. What's the point in that?
As to your unverified statement about VP Harris and banning petroleum, try doing some reading before posting false statements like you did:
"Vice President Kamala Harris aimed at moderates by voicing full-throated support for domestic oil production.
“We have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil,” Harris said Tuesday night in Philadelphia. “We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over-rely on foreign oil.”
In a state where natural gas helps power the economy, she pivoted from her 2019 call for a ban on fracking — extracting natural gas by creating cracks in the earth’s bedrock.
Harris’s moves show how some top Democrats have abandoned the idea of blocking oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters — which President Joe Biden once embraced —
“I will not ban fracking,” she said. “I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tiebreaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”
Your Trumper friend, skuds also is unaware that production went up while Harris was in office. If it had gone down and prices went up and people couldn't afford to buy as much as they wanted, she would be blamed.
While the office of vice president is basically without any power, thanks to the Republican senators who voted against it, there was a tie vote on a bill to increase petroleum exploration, and she got to cast the tie breaking vote for the bill.
Grey... a fair rate? I'm going with the upper level tax rates we had under GOP President Eisenhower. Rates that built America and paid off the debt from WWII AND rebuilt Europe.
What was that rate?
Here's what the Bradford Tax Institute has it pegged at...
In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.
How about we double it to 5 million? If you make over 5 million, you pay 94% of that to the feds, subject to sunset when the debt is paid off.
Skud is telling us again and again he will vote for Trump.
Rev, Why not support the Fair Tax system so everyone pays their fair share. It seems to be that the only way to have a fair system is for the rich to pay so the less fortunate don't have to. Or we could have a flat tax rate based on income graduated upwards. 0-50,000 5%, 50,001-100,000 10%, 100,001-150,000 15% 150,001-200,000 20% and above 200,001 25%. That way everyone would pay their fair share. No deductions and churches and charities pay their fair share.
We elect idiots and make them millionaires and expect them to work for us then we are shocked when they only work for themselves.
Ms Shaw seems to trust harris and I hope her trust turns out to be correct but so far she has shown every belief she had she changed, until she wins the election then we'll see. She went from the least liked VP to the queen of the democrats. That is not a endorsement of her but just a hatred of trump.
Congress is responsible for the tax code yet they have done nothing to change it to be fair for everyone. Why is that? Probably because the billionaires fund the campaigns and run the country. Did the democrats amass all those contributions from working people , no it was from the elite billionaires who expect to profit from their contributions. Don't be naive to think either party represents you.
Because Skud, that plan won't replace the revenue we currently have, let alone pay down the debt.
You'll only lower the debt with indexed rates and a top rate at least at 50% for every buck over a couple million.
What is their fair share billionaires should pay.
Well, Skud. We don't need to go back as far as Eisenhower. Hows about Reagan. The top marginal tax rate was 50% for 6 of his 8 years.
Speaking of Reagan, in 1984 he ran for re-election. The inflation rate was 4.2%. Today it's 2.5%. Unemployment rate was 7.2%. Today, 4.2%. Poverty rate was 13.5%. 11% today. 30 Yr. fixed mortgage rate was 13.88%. Today it's 6.02% and falling. Violent crime 1984 was 540 per 100,000. 2023, 360 per 100,000 and will be lower for 2024.
In 1984 Reagan ran on Morning in America. Today Trump is running on a Failing Nation. Go figure.
Change and impermanence - Life's 2 constants.
With Harris - continued positive forward looking change.
WithTrump - sliding backwards into serious and severe negative change with devestating consequences.
I beg to differ with you Rev. The effective tax rate in the US is 11.75% so with everyone being able to participate the government would actually have more money to waste. Everyone would pay from dollar one which would accomplish the goal of punishing the over achievers and give the everyone the pride that they participate.
Maybe we could have a campaign to cut government waste because neither candidate talks about that.
Skud, yes you can beg to differ, but bring some facts, because you are wrong. First, your plan is exactly what we already have, a progressive graduated tax plan. It's not flat at all.
I took your suggested top rate of 25% and applied it to the total gross [no deductions] income of all workers in the US. This includes work, investments, etc. That number is 28 trillion annually.
That would net the US government 7 trillion dollars in general income. If we keep Social Security where it is, at 7.5% per employee and 7.5% to the employer, we'd have an annual surplus of about 2.5 trillion. Money which in theory could go to the deficit.
Assuming this does not crash the economy, something many economists think would happen.
So here's what we would see...
Everyone in the US would pay an effective rate, with no deductions, of 32.5% to get us, using your top rate, to balance. I realize some will say "Yeah, but what about excise and corporate taxes?"
I get that, but those numbers aren't that much so we cold cut them, or keep them and apply those to the budget as well.
Look, there is not a US citizen anywhere in the US who does not pay taxes, be it sales, gas, other energy, etc. Yes, there is a group, making under 15.5K who do not pay income taxes. To make your plan work, and in your words, "fair", we would tax that person, or family $3750, plus their social security.
Once we take out Social Security, their take home, before state taxes, would be $10,200, or about 850.00 a month, as opposed to 14K or about $1150.00 a month.
Is this what will make you feel America is more fair?
The plan is not what we already have because the rich have multiple deductions and charities and churches pay nothing. I am only talking about FIT not local sales tax and miscellaneous taxes. Personal income in the US is 23 trillion and taxes collected was 4.44 trillion or 19%. When the top 50% pay 97.7% of all FIT that means 50% pay little to nothing so by giving them the opportunity to participate would increase the amount the politicians can waste.
One thought you didn't express was cutting government waste which is massive. I know the mantra is for the rich to pay their Fair Share but The average FIT is 14.9% where the top 1% pay 25.9%, is that fair. Yes there are some billionaires who pay little but that is because of their deductions. Get rid of the deductions and they would get the punishment the democrats want.
Skud... you seem to have a bug up a certain body part about taxes on non profits. Why?
The view is that non profits, which include churches and other charities, do good work for society and as such, should not face a tax burden when people give money to support their cause.
Essentially, the great majority of non profits, and again churches, are not expected to pay taxes on money that John Q Public and his wife have given us.
Why is that a problem? We pay social security on all our employees. We file quarterly income taxes for all our employees. If we make, or sell a product outside of our expressed charitable purpose, then we pay income tax on that. If we buy a product in a store for our non profits, depending on the state, we may or may not pay sales tax.
For example, my state, Nevada, has decided that since my non profit works in Mexico, we are not eligible to avoid sales taxes in our state.
Now, where we do benefit somewhat is connected to John Q Public. If John gives us money, he gets to deduct that money from his or her income. Because that money was never used by Mr Public for his own purpose, but rather, for the public good, through a heavily regulated and monitored non profit or charity.
I know you disagree with the purpose and/or the idea of non profits getting the small tax breaks we do get, breaks that shrunk with the Trump tax bill of 2017.
Focusing on the great number of non profits that do tremendous good in communities both here in the US and abroad, as opposed to a minority of bad ones, I wish I knew why you are so critical.
Churches, as they are businesses of influence (it's why there are hundreds if gods) they should be paying taxes. However, because their motivation is allegedly spiritual and "educational" the tax should be fixed at an artificially low rate. Two to two and one quarter percent see b s reasonable skud.
Rev, My reasoning about churches and non profits are they are paid for by everyone. The Catholic church owns billions in real estate and collects billions in contributions that they do not pay taxes on. Is that fair for a Muslim or on this site an atheist to have to pay for them. You are all for higher taxes but not for everyone and are for taxing companies but not churches and charities, the red cross, for example. Like any business they can offset their income by deduction their expenses so if the provide dollar in and dollar out they are flush. If a company or charity does not pay taxes that revenue loss is shared by everyone.
Paying SS for employees is part of a business and having employees who earn money.
The idea of donating to get a deduction is ridiculous and diminishes the meaning of charitable contributions. I never ask for a receipt when I donate to anything because it is a charitable contribution.
Les and Skud... neither of you have annunciated a policy of why someone, or a corporation, and all non profits are incorporated, should pay taxes on gifts. Should everyone in America pay taxes on gift income?
BTW, that 501(c)3 tax free designation includes Jewish, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu and even Humanist non religious congregations.
Now I get what you are saying in that when a person who donates gets a deduction, yes, the feds take a tax hit. That's true. But the trade off has historically been seen like this...
The feds are willing to forgo those taxes to allow a local non profit or church to offer a service to the community, that will be supported by the community, be attended by the community and be part of the community, rather than have the government have to provide it.
In the end, since the SCOTUS has rules that corporations are people, the only legal way to now tax a non profit on gift income will be to first legislate that corporations are not people.
Something I'm pretty sure the Dems would like to see, but which conservatives of all stripes will oppose.
And Skud, to whatever charity you donate freely, thank you. I know most of my donors will donate no matter, because they believe in what we do, how we do it, and trust us.
But some, especially those forced to take RMP's from their IRA and annuities, designate that money to non profits, choosing to have that money go for something good, rather than the government.
Just saying...
Corporations of course are not people.
Nor did any individual build that business or do much of anything else all by themselves.
Of course there are those like my wife and myself who get no benefit when we give as we simplified our lives and no longer need to itemize as we got rid of home and mortgage. Still give, forego the benefit to ourselves. Call it out of compassion and love.
Anyhoo Dave wether churches should pay taxes or not is really of not to much concern. I continue to give to my Buddhist Sanga as the work they do benefits many and helps make the world a slightly better place.
Post a Comment