ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .


This is ridiculous. And no doubt what the Dems ultimate plans are

I mean, they were doing it. They used the IRS against us, used the DOJ and NSA. Used activist groups to target Christians.

I listened to a lecture from David Horowitz regarding a civil war. He discussed how it's inevitable when there are irreconcilable differences in a country and we have no common ground with today's left. They're crazy as hell. This is going to explode.
 


Obama has always been grilled with tough questions...

Now that William has kids. Pretty much in the open that Harry ain't Charles's son.

harryandjameshewitt-9ae1d26a-b340-454a-a162-73b9545cfe82.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
She will go down as the biggest gangster ever.

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme
The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-27/anatomy-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme
 
My guess is they invested not only in msm. But also Facebook Amazon and Google. Those all of a suddenly exploded out of nowhere with seemingly unlimited funding. Especially Facebook. My guess is they all got their funding tidied and legitimatized before IPO.

All a conspiracy theory I know. But the easiest explanation is most often the right one.

Back to your point. This is not a "theory" but it is a conspiracy. Pay attention to what has happened lately with Eric Schmidt stepping down right around the same time Trump drops the EO to confiscate assets.

"Everything Has Gone Wrong... We've Centralized All Our Data To A Guy Named Zuckerberg"

To support this, Sunde points out that in the last 10 years, almost every up-and-coming tech company or website has been bought by the big five: Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook. The ones that manage to escape the reach of the giants, often end up adding to the centralization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
Remember Khan; the Muslim father of the fallen soldier from the early 2000s that the DNC trotted out last year and was connected to the Clintons?

I learned stuff that I wasn't aware of. Two Clinton campaign staffers wrote his speech and a female staffer bought the little pocket constitution for him two hours before the speech.

Clinton campaign approached five Gold Star families before settling on Kahn. All five families were paid $5k and signed non-disclosure agreements. Khan's immigration law firm is $1.7M in debt and owed upward of $850k in tax penalties. After his speech, the IRS put his audit on hold. Then CNN paid Khan a fee to tell his story and to give multiple interviews.

Dems are scum. Trump never should've responded to that guy or gave George Stephanapolous an interview.

Anyway, what level of deceit would Dems not do? People don't think that Don Jr email thing wasn't set up by Dems and DOJ? You don't think the dossier was used for a FISA? You don't think they colluded with Lisa Bloom for Trump accusers and even Roy Moore accusers?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what's so outrageous.

If you aren't itemizing, every dollar you give to charity costs you one dollar. If you are itemizing, a percentage of every dollar you give to charity is subsidized by the federal government.

That's a very big motivator for some.

Interesting take. Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but the federal government does not subsidize charitable gifts in that subsidizing means it is contributing government money.

IMO, the proper way to say it is "If you are itemizing, the federal government will get a percentage less of your income". The gov is simply getting less of my money. It is not subsidizing anything.
 
Interesting take. Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but the federal government does not subsidize charitable gifts in that subsidizing means it is contributing government money.

IMO, the proper way to say it is "If you are itemizing, the federal government will get a percentage less of your income". The gov is simply getting less of my money. It is not subsidizing anything.
Similar to take breaks for companies moving into states. Government is not giving them money, just not taking money from the company
 
You guys have basically defined subsidies.

My view of subsidies is related to growing up on a farm. I know of farmers that actually received a check from the government for NOT raising certain crops. I didn't believe it until I saw it, but it was true. As a tobacco farmer, back in the day, I know the government would set a minimum price on tobacco. So if we had a crap crop, we knew it would still be bought and paid for by the gov. When the gov actually pays the cost of production, which was the case in both the above, that's a subsidy.

It's only a true subsidy if money comes from the government and it is paying for something. If I give to my church and get a tax break, that's not a subsidy. If that's the official term that applies to such situations, then the wrong term is being used. I simply get to keep more of my own money. The gov doesn't give me anything.

I guess it's just a matter of how you look at things.
 
Ha. I can assure you, I, as a guy who spends his days ensuring people send as little as possible in tax to the government, do not assume hard earned money belongs to the government.
 
Ha. I can assure you, I, as a guy who spends his days ensuring people send as little as possible in tax to the government, do not assume hard earned money belongs to the government.
I’m know you don’t assume that, but what do you mean when you say that tax deductions are “subsidized”.
 
It’s too late for Europe, we need to make sure we don’t have another Obama type in the Oval Office ever again.
I'm waiting to be told that the fear of being eradicated by a foreign culture, even though it is clearly happening in Europe, is nothing short of xenophobia.

If an endangered animal is aware of its own impending demise, is that really an unhealthy or irrational fear? B/c that's what we're being sold. Boxes full of guilt the weak-minded do gymnastics to carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pelosigalore
Love it. Middle America is done subsidizing ny and CA. Alot of uninformed people will suddenly become VERY interested in local politics now they have skin in the game.

Will be interesting to see the difference.
Allowing the taxes to be prepaid doesn't change anything as far as tax deduction in 2017 unless the property taxes are billed/assessed & paid this year - per IRS ruling below.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-20...assessed-to-qualify-for-prepayment-1514417581
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT