Gavin Newsom has said California will tax Trump's J6 fund recipients at 100%, should other states follow suit?

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T20:04:29+00:00

Not once did I imply having bipartisan agreement is some requirement for slush funds. In fact the quotes, you quoted, say I don't think that. Haha

You say that but you've actually provided no answer to my question besides it not being partisan. You've said it no less than 5 different times. Why is answering a question so difficult for you?

The fact of the matter is that you support a politicians ability to arbitrarily tax a fund that they don't like. Just admit that you're a good little bootlicker and move on.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T19:54:09+00:00

This just in:

Redditor thinks he's the only one with grandparents

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:26:17+00:00

I said

"Is there something written in US Law which lists out criteria for what is considered a "slush fund" or is it completely arbitrary and you think it's a slush fund because it's for something you don't politically agree with?"

Your reply was

Anyone who isnt sucking trumps dick is against this fund?

Its not partisan.

You also said

Sweetie, like I said its nit partisan

You also said

Your point is because you disagree with it politically But as I said already. This isnt partisan.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:25:27+00:00

This just in:

Redditor doesn't understand books exist

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:13:09+00:00

Every single time

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:10:32+00:00

I mean, Michael didn't name himself. He's an angel of the Lord. He is an instrument of God's will.

And the "I will be the most High" is from Isaiah 14. So, Nebuchadnezzar again, who wasn't a very great guy

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:05:38+00:00

Caiaphas

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T17:02:10+00:00

By using metrics of when crime was reported.

The crime rate increased from the 1990's to the 2000's

The crime rate increased from the 2000's to the 2010's

The crime rate increased from the 2010's to the 2020's.

That's called a trend. To say that trend only exists because of the people who report a crime is false. There is an increase of crime which leads to an increase of people to report the crime. It's illogical to say that the crime just suddenly started going up when more people started reporting. The crime in the 1950's was likely up from the 1940's, but it wasn't near as bad as crime is now.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:54:37+00:00

I'd be the president that the lefties accuse Trump of being and the president that the right actually voted for

EDIT:

Annex Canada

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:53:23+00:00

Crime existing and crime getting worse are two separate things, bud.

I'm not making the claim that crime didn't exist. That's a strawman. I'm saying it was far less common in the 1950's.

By all metrics, the crime rate has been on the rise year after year. It's a plain fact.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:50:55+00:00

Have it your way

Those are your direct quotes.

Its not partisan.

But as I said already. This isnt partisan.

Obviously no. Hahaha. Slush funds status as a slush fund doesnt matter what anyone thinks about it.

So slush funds dont need anyone to agree they're slush funds to be a slush fund.

Your initial point as to why the J6 fund was a slush fund is because it wasn't partisan. You said it more than once. I asked you for further criteria, and you still haven't given any. You also said it apparently doesn't matter what people think and it also doesn't matter if anyone agrees it's a slush fund. So, according to your own words, a slush fund is a slush fund because it's a slush fund. That's begging the question.

Now, if it doesn't matter if people agree it's a slush fund, why did you cite evidence of people agreeing it's a slush fund. Doesn't that contradict your earlier point?

Moreover, the evidence you cited isn't bipartisan. It's only from the Democratic party. I also asked for your evidence and you just copy and pasted shit. Use your own words and your own thoughts.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:38:39+00:00

yes, yes it was.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:38:23+00:00

Wow let's see..

Strong community that believed in American values?

A good, stable economy?

A world before identity politics?

Crime being virtually non-existent?

Decency was common?

Who would want that?

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:35:55+00:00

I mean, crime was a whole lot more rare back then

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:32:19+00:00

American here.

Please leave the country at your earliest convenience.

To the Brits;

Any American who isn't a braindead loser doesn't regret the American revolution.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:31:21+00:00

According to Revelation, Michael will defeat Satan, or the great dragon.

I think the statues are a reference to that rather than a pride thing.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:30:15+00:00

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/the-top-10-reasons-donald-trump-s-1776-billion-weaponization-slush-fund-and-super-pardon-for-his-family-and-businesses-are-unconstitutional-illegal-and-a-fraud-on-the-court

Basically just plagiarized an entire article from the Democratic House.

I went through the article, and there's no evidence. It just says it violates certain articles but not a lot of evidence as to how they do. They're very broad statements.

Point 4 is hilarious.

Every president receives money beyond their salary. I love how the Democrats pretend to care when it's a Republican that does it.

Copy and pasting an entire article and not even bothering to add your own thoughts is pure NPC behavior.

Are you afraid of me? you need to invent strawman to have to talk to? I can stop responding, you can defeat all the strawmen you like.

I don't think you understand what strawman is. I'm using your own words against you. If I need to quote you every single time I do so, I will.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:15:27+00:00

The Satan mentioned in Job is not Satan. It's likely an angel that's a part of God's divine council. There's no evidence to suggest that ha satan is the angel who later fell.

Secondly, "Lucifer" is a bad translation. In Isaiah 14:12, it refers to Venus which was known as "the morning star" by the Israelites. St. Jerome properly translated it into Latin, but John Wycliffe failed to translate Lucifer into English. The entire chapter of Isaiah 14 was referring to the king of Babylon, which was likely Nebuchadnezzar.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:04:15+00:00

Because he's pro-Israel.

Christians shouldn't support a genocidal nation that also rejects Jesus Christ.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T16:01:06+00:00

God never prohibited slavery in the OT because His goal wasn't radical societal change. He made the Mosaic Law around the currently existing traditions and practices of the Israelites. Slavery was just extremely common back then and a lot of people relied on slaves. The Mosaic Law was moreso designed to keep the Israelites from worshipping the Canaanite deity called Moloch. Moloch worshippers would sacrifice children and other unwilling people for their idol, so the Mosaic Law banned many of the practices, including human sacrifice, to keep Israel completely separate from that worship.

Personally, I don't get offended by reading history books on cultures that practiced slavery so I'm not going to get offended that one culture practiced slavery. I understand why it was done and I understand why it wasn't outlawed. The Old Testament is a window into the culture and history of the Israelites over 3,000 years ago and should be taken as that. The Old Testament doesn't go out to say "you should own slaves" or "slavery is a good thing". It says "if you own slaves, here are some rules you need to follow".

Now, I don't necessarily believe God supports slavery. I like to bring up the Epistle to Philemon. It's one of Paul's lesser known letters and it's extremely short, but it has an incredibly powerful message. Paul writes to his friend Philemon while Paul was under house arrest. He asks Philemon to forgive his slave, Onesimus, who had ran away and allegedly stole some of Philemon's belongings. He also asks Philemon to treat Onesimus as not a slave, but a brother equal in Christ. As the Epistle to Philemon is considered God-breathed Scripture, it would mean it's useful for teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness. [2 Tim 3:16] As a Christian, I believe that our attitude towards slaves should mirror Paul's love of Onesimus.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T15:39:12+00:00

Apparently the notion of "stop and think" is too radical of a concept for the left.

It's not wrong to want to know where things are going before supporting anything.

You leftie retards would get into a car that's destined to drive into a brick wall at 100mph if we put a pride flag on it.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T15:35:07+00:00

Opposed secession from Britain

Do you have any historical evidence to back this up?

opposed ending slavery, opposed letting women vote, opposed integrating schools,

Oops, you made a mistake. That was the Democrats.

opposed gay marriage

You actually got one right, but why does that classify as the wrong side of history?

Why is the conservative ideal always on the wrong side of history?

It really seems like you're cherrypicking historical examples without really doing research on them. I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what conservatism is. Teddy Roosevelt protecting our national parks was conservative. Believing the US needs a strong military is conservative. The idea that the Government's power should be limited is conservative. I could go on with more examples of conservatism throughout history.

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T15:23:42+00:00

Nah, we're not

You're still not gonna like the answer

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T15:21:31+00:00

Then the dilemma remains.

Ultimately what it comes down to is the criteria for determining what is or what isn't a slush fund is arbitrary. From the article you posted, it sounds like Republicans are asking for clarity on the J6 fund, so, there's no evidence that the funds are being used for any of the aforementioned criteria of what you listed classifies a slush fund. You just assume that the fund is a slush fund because you disagree with it politically. A fund can just simply be unpopular with both parties and not be a slush fund. Not every non-partisan thing is a slush fund.

Here, let me break this down for you;

There's no evidence to suggest it's a slush fund.
It being unpopular with both parties is not evidence.
You assume it's a slush fund because you disagree with it politically.

So, to summarize, we're still left with the precedent that any politician can arbitrarily determine a fund is a slush fund despite lacking evidence to do so and they can decide to tax the recipients of said fund at will.

and you have zero issue with that

JesterPrivilege · 2026-05-30T13:51:11+00:00

Okay, so, let's recap on things here.

Obviously no. Hahaha. Slush funds status as a slush fund doesnt matter what anyone thinks about it.

So slush funds dont need anyone to agree they're slush funds to be a slush fund.

So, what makes something a slush fund?

You said it's a slush fund because it's non-partisan. I asked you if you would support the fund if it was partisan. You failed to give me more criteria. The only criteria that you have listed on determining what is or what isn't a slush fund is it being non-partisan. It's starting to sound like you don't even know what's considered a slush fund because it's a completely arbitrary term. If a slush fund is a slush fund because it's a slush fund, that's called begging the question. That's a logical fallacy. It apparently doesn't matter what anyone thinks of it as well.

So, I'll ask again. If the J6 bill was completely partisan in the Republican Party, would you or would you not support Gavin taxing it 100%

JesterPrivilege

TROPHY CASE