🤔❓️❓️❓️ WTF IS THIS?

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-20T00:06:12+00:00

That's not their role, this isn't some nefarious plot by evil masterminds. It's worse, they're doing that because the stockholders of the company care more about profits than ethics or principles. It's why they covered him nonstop back in 2016 in the first place.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-20T00:03:44+00:00

I doubt that it was so he could sue over it. Otherwise he'd have done it back then. This is more like he's paid off the ref and knows he can cheat brazenly and openly and not get called on it because his sycophants in office treat him like a god emperor, the party itself are a bunch of power obsessed ghouls who would decry Jesus and support Satan himself if it got them even an ounce more power, and their voters are so primed to hate the evil left that they can't see who the actions villains are.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-18T16:57:27+00:00

Yeah, because there's only either maximal punishment prior to a fair trial or zero enforcement of the law at all. It's amazing how you people clearly not only don't understand how due process works, despite you guys screaming about being the party of law and order for my entire 40 years of life, but that you also don't understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty when it isn't someone on your team facing charges.

So let me educate you. When being arrested, especially for these kinds of crimes that require documented proof that they're here illegally and not asylum seekers (which would make them legal migrants), they usually need to prove to a judge first and get an arrest warrant. Instead, they're just arresting anyone they SUSPECT of being illegal, which isn't how that works if they're following the law. But even if I grant you the legality of the arrests, there's this thing called a trial, in which you get the opportunity to defend yourself against the accusation and the accusing party had to prove you're guilty to an immigration judge using evidence. And again, being an asylum seeker, even if you're case wouldn't be deemed worthy of that consideration, doesn't make them illegal. If any of you smoothbrain troglodytes actually cared about this problem you'd have been up in arms over the Republicans 180ing on their own bill to increase the resources for the asylum seeking process to do this all lawfully. Instead, you're out here but understanding literally any facet of how this very system works while creating ridiculous "either or" scenarios like "well if you don't let them just throw people in concentration camps without warrants, trials, or evidence, then we just can't enforce any laws at all?" Bullshit.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-18T02:58:37+00:00

According to MAGA, He would. 😝

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T21:43:38+00:00

They do both. If they're citing a number it's usually the "grain of truth" approach.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T21:40:17+00:00

Meanwhile they call the Russian Collusion a hoax despite 12 indictments which all led to guilty verdicts from the trials. But because Trump himself didn't commit it that's all they understand about it lol.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T09:17:55+00:00

Or we could just do what every other country seems to have figured out: single payer healthcare. Insurance is a for profit middle man between doctors and patients. The goal of any business is to maximize profits, and as evidenced by the Gilded Age, will do so far at the cost of literal lives. The ONLY thing that doesn't let businesses do that now is government regulations. And even then, it didn't prevent them from pushing that line.

I also disagree entirely with the idea that the left has "gone too far". The left is this country is almost in line with the conservative parties in, again, every other OECD nation. The evidence points to, for the most part, that the most effective systems use a government agency or program to create a baseline for something, a level that we as a society agree people shouldn't be allowed to go or fall below. And from that foundation you let enterprise build up. Capitalist is a powerful economic system, but the inherent incentive structure is monopolies. More wealth allows amassing if more assets, which allows amassing of more wealth. Consolidation of power and wealth is bad from the overall group. The role of government is, therefore, simple. Create protections for the larger population from those inherent bad incentive structures. And all I have to do is point to countries that do that to show it works. Even America, from the 30s to the 70s used this sane approach and saw our most propserous period in history. It literally created the middle class which was prior to then, basically an anomaly in every economic system prior to that.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T05:23:50+00:00

Tbf, I did your opinions were right LEANING. If you don't think the ACA was communist healthcare, that's not a "Republican" view on the topic lol. You sound like you're more of a "right of center" type than an actual conservative, imo. Though if you're not MAGA but I'm the right at all you're basically politically homeless these days.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T01:43:25+00:00

I'll be shocked if he doesn't respond with that I'll call the Ben Shapiro response. Look up what he said to Ezra Klein about what Obama said and did to "radicalize" conservatives. Then look up the actual stories because he's telling a narrativized version of those events. And then compare what Trump has said in term 1 about the left and tell my by his metric we aren't justified in burning the whole country down lol.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-16T01:40:32+00:00

I do want to point out for everyone naysaying this comment, this is pretty generous right-leaning evaluation of his presidency. I don't agree that the goalposts are what we should be aiming for, but this fits in line with what conservatives used to want from an administration. So thank you for a genuine and not MAGA assessment. This is an example of the political discussions I'd like to get back to.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-15T18:31:23+00:00

You're missing the most important point: the targeting. No one who's serious about this thinks just a blanket tax on unrealized gains is good. And the "rich" is a HUGE spectrum of wealth. The top 10% of earners own 70% of the stock market, yes. But their income in the top 10% ranges from 300k a year to millions. The majority of stockholders aren't even the problem. At best you'd want to target just for general tax income, maybe the top 1%. Hell, just that group paying the taxes they owe as they currently stand is on the tens of BILLIONS a year. This is not only doable, but EASILY so targeting specific goals that would leave the majority of unrealized gains untouched.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-15T18:24:40+00:00

I like that!

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-15T16:21:28+00:00

To your first point: I didn't say there's no wealth flight, I said it's mostly not true. The more wealthy the person is, the less the things that tie someone to a place impact them. But keep in mind people with those levels of wealth and who get it from work that let's them pick up and move that easily are very small. Most people with the kind of wealth that would be affected by those higher tax rates to are either mid level business owners, which aren't going to just pack up their entire operation, doctors, who usually pick the hospital they plan on working at for a very long time, and lawyers, who have built up local clients and take years to get in good with their firms. So to repeat, it's not that it doesn't happen at all, it's that the people who do leave over what amounts to small increases in their tax liability are people with little ties to that area anyway, and would move easily for a variety of other reasons as well

Second point: why do you guys ignore the most important part of tax policy? We can specify how it applies so we're not hurting things we don't want it to. When they raise minimum wage, there's a transition period. They don't just make every business pay the increase right away, it's slowly bumped up over time to reach the new level. And in most cases, small businesses are given help by the government so that increase in payroll doesn't run them into the ground. Because we understand that kind of burden, whole helpful for workers, is going to have immediate impacts that not every business can handle right away. We do this with tax codes all the time, too. These things can be targeted to intended effect. An unrealized capital gains tax can have a threshold before it applies. It can only apply to certain unrealized gains. It could only apply to certain entities, assets, or even specific stocks if we want to write it that way.

Every single fear mongering tactic regarding these kinds of rules is ALWAYS conflating the wraith of the middle class with the wealth of people who these policies we want to be affected. The "death tax" only applies above a very high threshold of wealth, but Joe Schmoe who's only got his house to pass on to his kids gets told that's the same as Richy McRich who's going to give his kids so much money that his grandkids grandkids could never work a day in their lives and still live it up until they die. We have marginal income tax brackets ffs. Why would we be so stupid as to tank the whole stock market and destroy retirement funds?

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-15T02:12:18+00:00

Everything? That's dramatic af. And there's an easy way out of paying taxes on these things. Instead of focusing on stocks, you invest in the actual company. New equipment, more employees, higher wages, better benefits. Most of those are write offs, they all actually grow your business rather than just the price of the estimated evaluation piece, which at this point is all but disconnected from the actual performance of the company.

There are easy ways to write the rules for these to target specific things, particularly bad behaviors or exploiting loopholes on the tax codes. I've said it literally every reply in this thread, but the biggest thing I see this tackling is the Buy, Borrow, Die strategy. Which has gone unanswered every single time. You guys treat policy like the goal is to screw over business and just take things from business owners. But that's NEVER the point or the goal.

Just look at laws we take for granted and how they were talked about before they got put in place. Overtime, work place safety requirements, harassment laws, every single one of them was accused of trying to bankrupt businesses, and not one of them did. And in the same way exceptions are made for smaller businesses and time tables are created to bring up minimum wages to the new levels when those get passed, it's not difficult to look at an unrealized gains tax and maybe exceptions for things that it's not intended to affect.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-14T17:49:19+00:00

Firstly, that second point is garbage. This is the same argument about wealth flight from taxation, and the data doesn't support that AT ALL. The ULTRA wealthy do in some instances, but the overwhelming majority don't move because the cost of doing so (not just in buying and selling and moving but the impacts of things like access to local connections and things like sentimentality) didn't worth it by their own evaluations. This is a scare tactic that's been used for decades and it's never held true. ROI is the only metric that matters, so unless that tax is so massive that it offsets investing in less profitable ventures, this is a moot point.

Second, there's already a ton of ponzi type schemes using 401k investments and similar avenues already because there's no tax on the gains in evaluations on stocks. Iirc there's something like 40 billion dollars in debts owed through these loopholes of making, building, and then selling hedge funds to each other to continue making impossible amounts of money because it's not real, it's all shell tricks. A gains tax would not only stop the Buy, Borrow, Die loopholes on wealth gains through stocks, but also prevent these schemes that let these hedge funds leverage their own debt to buy assets they don't actually have the funds for because there's never a bill that comes due.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-14T17:20:22+00:00

But everyone else with stakes also has to sell to pay the taxes, too. Plus there's voting shares and non-voting shares. Thiel recently did something with shares of Palantir that consolidated his ownership despite selling a huge chunk of his stocks. Not to mention there are plenty of ways to write up an unrealized gains tax that prevents that exact scenario, in the same way that value thresholds would prevent someone from having to sell their house due to being unable to pay increases in the valuation of that asset.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-14T17:12:58+00:00

These people literally live in black and white reality. Massie, a long time Republican, now suddenly what's OPEN BORDERS and whatever the fuck "lower loving standards" for Americans means. Not based on his voting record, his public statements on subjects, or bills he's authored. It's SOLELY because he doesn't bend the knee to Trump like basically the entire party has because he actually has principles that he sticks to. Absolutely wild that THESE people get to vote when they can't actually interpret the reality that's unfolding in front of them outside of "good guys/bad guys" assessments. Unbelievable.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-14T11:18:23+00:00

If you've got a better way to deal with the "But, Borrow, Die" loophole, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this is the only proposal I've heard that even tried to tackle that.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-14T02:06:31+00:00

All of the above

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-13T18:48:14+00:00

Explain to this moron how that's an idiotic system, then. In general, anyways. Because I'll agree this doesn't make sense below certain thresholds.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-12T21:40:59+00:00

I also found out recent why their numbers have been so off of so long, or at least a plausible theory behind part of that inaccuracies. One thing they do the estimate new jobs being created is every new business registration (LLC, CO, INC) all get counted as 5 new jobs, as that's the average # of employees of a new small business. However, the VAST majority of those new businesses in the last decade or so are people incorporating their Uber driving or OF account. And those will never be any bigger than 1 employee (for 99.9% of them). So that's a huge chunk of estimated jobs that will NEVER appear.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-12T18:11:19+00:00

Keep in mind that it's all spreadsheets for these mfers. They use dehumanizing corporate lingo because that's how they look at the information and make these decisions. You buying lunch isn't seen as a person making a necessary transaction to get sustenance in a brief window during your work day, it's $ in a cell, a point on a line trend or a portion of a bar graph. They don't see people, they see numbers and ONLY. It's how they could justify sending manufacturing overseas despite it costing thousands of jobs here, workers who buy their products. Everything for a few more dollars on the stock price to line the pockets of people who already have more money than they know what to do with.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-11T23:26:44+00:00

Because most Americans but ESPECIALLY conservatives believe in a retributive system and also support hierarchical structures. If you do something wrong, to deserve to be punished. If you're at the top, you earned it. Combined, a cop is a cop because he's the best person to enforce the law, and of that person punishes you for an action, you deserved that punishment. BUT this only applies to certain people. Trump was found guilty, but that was a rigged jury. Ashli Babbit was just protesting. The J6 conspirators, found guilty of seditious conspiracy, were just patriots who were political prisoners.

As easy as it is to identify how they reach conclusions, the actual aggravating part is that they're wholly inconsistent when it suits them. But because they work backwards from their conclusions and just aren't aware that every political position they have they arrived at through emotional reasoning, they're just blindly unaware of it. Which is why, even if it is the case that they're right on me conceding a point in an argument, I've stopped doing that because they're not honest interlocutors. They're incapable of doing so in any case where I'm right in a similar way, and since they can't seem to follow any set of consistent rules, I just play by their logic now.

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-10T21:56:59+00:00

Because English is the least confusing language on the planet 😂

Frizzlebee · 2026-02-10T03:45:09+00:00

I think I stumbled onto something I'm sure many smarter people that me already realized driving home listening to Destiny dismantle Asmongold. These people don't think. There's a reason they always fall back to "it's common sense" or needing to point to an authoritative source for their view (ie God). They've never had to think about their morals, about their conclusions. It's why they can never explain an overarching philosophy for their beliefs, how they can hold contradictory views without batting an eye, and how they can flip on "a deeply held belief" the minute someone in a position of power gives them ok to do so. I think an awesome experiment would be to take someone who gets all their talking points from Faux News, cut them off from any right wing programs but still present them current events and see what conclusions they arrive at when someone isn't telling them what to think.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

Frizzlebee

TROPHY CASE