President Trump

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:11 pm

I was watching that meeting between Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer.

He really got baited into blowing up.

Clearly these lapses/tantrums are a cognitive illness.

The incoming Speaker really knows how to rile him up.

He should be careful - she has the power to impeach him.

====

When I tried to diagnose DJT during Thanksgiving one of our extended family members stated its unethical for medical professionals to render these judgments without patient permission.

Fortunately I am not bound by that cramped interpretation.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:22 pm

I understand the patient privacy laws, but wondering...

If an employee is in charge of, say a missile system, the boss/employer needs to know the mental stability and cognitive capabilities of the employee. In the same token, as public have voted for someone like a president, shouldn't they be allowed to know the mental state and cognitive ability of the person who is holding high office?

That white house meeting shows how broken the system is (thanks to Don and his mafia, it's getting shattered everyday in a bad way). But even if Pelosi and co impeaches Don, nothing happens. The republican senate would rather be in bed with the devil than do what they are constitutionally obligated to do...

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:52 am

There is nothing unethical about an MD offering an opinion on a public individual that he or she has never treated.

I would look favorably on a candidate that released their medical records, but I wouldn't be as comfortable with making it a requirement. I would fully support requiring candidates to release their tax returns.

sdr · Post by **sdr** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:29 pm

American Psychiatric Association Ethics Committee Opinion:

Question: May a psychiatrist give an opinion about an individual in the public eye when the psychiatrist, in good faith, believes that the individual poses a threat to the country or national security?

Answer: Section 7.3 of The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry (sometimes called “The Goldwater Rule”) explicitly states that psychiatrists may share expertise about psychiatric issues in general but that it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion about an individual based on publicly available information without conducting an examination. Making a diagnosis, for example, would be rendering a professional opinion. However, a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional. Instead, when a psychiatrist renders an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry, the opinion is a professional one. Thus, saying that a person does not have an illness is also a professional opinion.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:22 pm

I thought I read that the CIA has a whole division of specialists who can detect when foreign leaders are ill or starting to get dementia and so on.

Also the fixation on ideas - a classic sign of craziness.

His handlers originally developed the The Wall concept as a way to stay focused on the general topic of open borders, security etc.

It wasn't meant to be a tangible item, like the Great Wall of China.

But after repeating the mantra so many times, it's become a fixation.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:12 pm

Good thing I’m not a psychiatrist, or I'd be in trouble for expressing my opinion of Trump as a narcissistic sociopath.

The ethical rules for psychiatrists as well as the privacy rules regarding psychiatric medical records tend to be more specific and strict than those for other areas of medicine. Similarly for records and opinions related to sexually transmitted diseases. You don’t hear much objection to physicians offering opinions on how a disease like Parkinson or cancer might affect a celebrity’s life or the likelihood that an athlete will recover from an injury. A medical ethicist might object to all of that, but society has drawn different lines for different situations.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:01 pm

My favorite Trumpy news over the weekend was the revelation that Anthony 'The Mooch' Scaramucci will be joining a reality TV show for the next act in his life.

I didn't recognize the other guests on the show, other than Kato Kaelin, who some of you might remember as bit player in the OJ Simpson trial of decades ago.

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:06 pm

Did anyone see the Trump take-down by Senator Warner on Sunday tv? Was quite impressive. Need that dude to run. Right now we seem to be fielding a group of snowflake progressives that will get trounced by Trump, or bankrupt us if elected.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:50 pm

Forget position papers and policy manifestos. I can tell everything I need to know about a candidate based on the wine they drink. Let’s get their palate preferences on public record!*

Who drinks that Frenchie stuff like Cab Franc!? First, we’ll have to rename it Freedom Franc (is that a new oxymoron?) and wonder aloud why they use the adjective silky so often in their tasting notes.

But whatever their palate, no one could bankrupt the US any faster than Trump and his Republican stooges on Capital Hill have done in years 1 and 2.

* If Trump actually drank, the sommelier would have to be sworn to secrecy first. But Trump wouldn’t drink wine, it would be Russian vodka

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:27 pm

Marcus: It stuck in my mind last year when you told me that Amy Klobuchar was known for being abusive to staff members, and I've always looked at her differently after you told me that.

It was interesting to watch how those reports became the narrative of the first day of her campaign.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:00 pm

OrlandoRobert
I just about fell off my chair laughing with your comment about progressives.
I think the world is becoming a very sad place - so divided and at times, like a soap opera playing out with violins in the background....

In Asia, the snowflakes are called strawberries (highly fragile and easily squashed). Yet over here, strength, perseverance and character are still valued.
As China embraces capitalism (particularly when the communist govt benefits from it....) the west seems to be descending into a state of oblivion.
Yet I envisage that in another decade or so, the horrors of Mao, the GLP and cultural revolution will be forgotten and communism will become cool again, at least until the next purging of useful idiots.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:56 pm

What do the Democrats do if Trump declares victory, and decides NOT to run?

Already my sources tell me he is planning on saying he accomplished more in 1 term than any one else in 4 terms.

And he will ride out on his white horse,

Tweeting victory.

He also then plans to gloat that he is Undefeated

Antoine · Post by **Antoine** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:28 pm

Let's face it, he got there, he may be bored by it... why would he fight for another 4 years?... only to be able to brag about it... but then get nored for the next 4 years... Your analysis looks good..

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 pm

He's going to run for reelection. And he's going to win.
There isn't a single Democrat who thrills me.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:04 pm

Why he’ll run again:
Narcissism
Another 4 years to enrich himself, his family, and cronies.

Ds might just allow him to be re-elected by failing to realize it’s more important to get rid of Trump than to be excited by a less than ideal D candidate.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:21 pm

In addition to the stream of lies emanating from the Peckerhead in Chief's piehole this morning, he says of the National Emergency to appropriate funds to build his wall: "I didn’t need to do this. I just want to get it done faster, that’s all."

Does that sound like an emergency to you?

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:37 pm

JimHow wrote:He's going to run for reelection. And he's going to win.
There isn't a single Democrat who thrills me.

In 2016 Trump barely won with 48% of the vote against a uniquely unpopular and incompetent opponent.

He has consistently been unable to break 44% approval ratings during his entire presidency and is usually closer to 40%.

An unprecedented number of people say they will never vote for him.

I don't know why anyone would be assuming he would win in 2020.

He is a very unpopular, weak, and incompetent president especially when you consider that the economy is doing well.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:33 pm

In addition he is now going to be confronted with an intra party challenger from the right flank.

William Weld could run from the GOP side to challenge him for the nomination.

I once saw him walking on the streets of NYC.

He's a big guy, maybe 6'6'' with fiery red hair.

Trump has never faced such a masculine opponent.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:21 pm

marcs wrote:
JimHow wrote:He's going to run for reelection. And he's going to win.
There isn't a single Democrat who thrills me.
In 2016 Trump barely won with 48% of the vote against a uniquely unpopular and incompetent opponent.

He has consistently been unable to break 44% approval ratings during his entire presidency and is usually closer to 40%.

An unprecedented number of people say they will never vote for him.

I don't know why anyone would be assuming he would win in 2020.

He is a very unpopular, weak, and incompetent president especially when you consider that the economy is doing well.

+1. But Jim was sure Romney was going to win too. It’s a problem we Democrat’s have.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:28 pm

The Dems victory in the 2016 mid-terms were the largest margin of victory in the popular vote by any minority party in the history of our republic and only twice was it exceeded by the majority party in our history too. Worse for the Republicans— they had an extremely high turn out of their base, historically high, and they still got trounced.

And we all know that the Republicans do better in mid-terms, so where do they go from there?

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:11 am

Maybe if Trump tacked to the middle, he’d have a chance to win back the independents that he needs to get re-elected, but he’s showing no signs of such a shift.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:01 am

+1. But Jim was sure Romney was going to win too. It’s a problem we Democrat’s have.

I don't recall that, blanquito, but I do recall you being certain that Clinton was going to win.
I recall calling the Obama electoral college victories to the exact number.
And of course the title to this thread indicates an understanding of the Trump threat nearly two years before the 2016 election.

The economy is chugging along.
Gasoline is at $2 per gallon.
Trump has won yet another victory, he's going to get his Wall.
Soon he will be appointing his third Supreme Court justice.
With Mitch in charge, Trump is owning the federal judiciary for a generation.
Polls are for losers... I remember Pappa Bush at 90%.

Meantime, that great party of AOC is putting up the likes of Liz Warren, Kirsten Gillebrand, Julian Castro, and Kamala "Giggles" Harris.
Could you imagine Trump in a general election against one of those snowflakes?
Especially if the Starbucks guy is in there to siphon 15% away from the left?
OMG. It's going to be a massacre.

Prediction: Orange Head wins more states in 2020 than he did in 2016.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:09 am

Too early to chime in without knowing the final ballot names...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:53 pm

CV: Most people don't realize it, but we are living in a fascist state.
Fox has become the fascist government's media arm.
I get a kick out of the outrage over the wall.
Orange Head campaigned on the promise of building a big, beautiful wall.
Orange Head was elected president.
As he promised, Orange Head has dictated the construction of a wall pursuant to an order that will utimately be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be populated by at least 2-3 of his far right nominees.
And it will all be "legal."
Elections have consequences. People need to deal with it.

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:30 pm

One of the first consequences of the Fall elections was AOC.

And she has already swatted back the worlds most powerful billionaire from trying to invade her district.

Could Mz. Cortez impeach POTUS next?

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:50 pm

Based on the current state of affairs, I believe Trump is authoritarian and Faux is undoubtedly the media arm of this administration. Who would have thought anyone would be saying something even remotely about the US? Even Washington Examiner called Trump’s emergency as unconstitutional and bad. But Faux news is still beating the drum supporting the move! That’s how bad Faux has become, all in the name of free speech...As noble as the right of free speech is, the way it is being implemented and enforced by courts is becoming horrendous. It has become ‘free for all speech’...

I personally think Orange won because of low turnout of dem voters, especially disgruntled bernie supporters. If mid terms are any indication, that won’t happen come 2020 and won’t be hard to overcome 50k votes in Wisc, Mi and Penn combined. Now all dems have to do is nominate someone decent, or someone even better like Biden...Likes of Warren, Klobuchar and Harris might make the race competitive...

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:47 pm

So:
Unemployment is low.
ISIS has been defeated.
Crime is down.
Gas is at $2.
The immigration laws on the books are being enforced.
Middle class citizens are paying less in taxes.
Obamacare is still largely intact.
NATO is paying its fair share.
The world is at relative peace.
Tom Brady and the Patriots keep winning Super Bowls.

Sure, the left's agenda on healthcare, the environment, the judiciary, reproductive rights, etc., is taking a beating, but you think all that outweighs the economy and the basic arrogance and racism of the American populace?

It's the economy, stupid.
We had this little mini-Trump governor up here in Maine, Paul LePage, one of the most hateful little son of a bitches you've ever met. The dictionary picture definition of a Tea Bagger. He was elected with 39% of the vote in a perfect storm eight years ago, when the Democrat and an Independent split the vote on the left side of the spectrum. Everyone said the same thing when he was up for reelection four years ago... oh, he only got 39% the first time, yada, yada. Well, he ended up getting reelected with well over 50% of the vote.

Donald Trump is a political Godzilla. He is a tazmanian devil. Ask Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and about a dozen other Republicans how vulnerable Donald Trump is. I come from Lewiston, Maine, where things aren't as pretty as in the Beltway or the great liberal cities of America. Orange Head is beloved in places like this, all across America. He will employ every asset available to him in the U.S. Presidency to wreak his unique brand of fascism upon the Democratic Party. I don't know where the fake news mainstream media is getting their information. Trump has basically won every single one of his battles to date. Mueller continues to chase rainbows. Soon he will have three Supreme Court justices... incredible. He's going to have his wall... as promised. He got his tax cuts. He is winning so much he is getting tired of winning. And yet the loser Democratic Party thinks they've got him on the run because they picked up the House... while losing ground in the Senate.

Discount Orange Head's chances of reelection at your own peril.
I honestly don't see anyone who can beat him from the democratic Party.
Maybe Bernie, because Bernie in a lot of ways has almost the same kind of angry, nasty cult of personality as OH, except from the left.
But as for the rest of that pathetic bunch. I mean... Cory Booker.... Good grief. Really?. Eric Holder???? Are you fucking serious?

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:03 pm

Its highly likely the Dems will take over the Senate and retain the House in the 2020 elections, so if he does get re-elected he is sure to be impeached, and very likely removed from office.

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:38 pm

Chris

Although there are some like 21 GOP seats up for grabs in the Senate in 2020 are most of them safe redneck seats? I think I it will be tough for the Dems to win the Senate in 2020.

I fear that Jim May be right about the Presidency because the Dems are a shambles. The party is moving to the left and it is all about either OTT PC race & gender identity or radical redistribution.

If the candidate is from the Far Left then some plutocrat billionaire tax evader like Howard Schulz will come in, scythe the Democratic vote and hand Trump a second term.

The Dems feel they paid a high price for fiscal responsibility under Clinton and Obama so there are no fiscal conservatives left in Washington. A scary thought.

jal · Post by **jal** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Comte Flaneur wrote: If the candidate is from the Far Left then some plutocrat billionaire tax evader like Howard Schulz will come in, scythe the Democratic vote and hand Trump a second term.

Ian, where have you read Schultz is a tax evader? I'm not disputing, I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Yeah, the Republicans will not lose the Senate in 2020 because of the particular Republican seats up for re-election.
And of course it would take 67 votes to convict him, not gonna happen....

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:50 am

The Donnie has a complete stranglehold on the Republican Party. His approval with self identified Republicans has never dropped below the high 80’s, no matter how low things have gone in his first two tumultuous, insane, unprecedented years in office. Short of a video of him in bed with Putin (even audio wouldn’t suffice, I’d wager), that’s not gonna change.

And given the way Senate seats are anti-democratically proportioned (in a perfect storm, something like as few as 18% of the electorate can elect 51 senators), the Senate convicting him for an impeachment from the House is out of the question.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:57 am

JimHow wrote:So:

Donald Trump is a political Godzilla.

: 14E2D453-8D27-4CA9-A7FA-C7A9C0369210.jpeg (56.93 KiB) Viewed 2474 times

Comte Flaneur · Post by **Comte Flaneur** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:58 pm

jal wrote:
Comte Flaneur wrote: If the candidate is from the Far Left then some plutocrat billionaire tax evader like Howard Schulz will come in, scythe the Democratic vote and hand Trump a second term.
Ian, where have you read Schultz is a tax evader? I'm not disputing, I just haven't seen any evidence of it.

Jacques

The low effective corporate tax rates paid by Amazon, Google, Starbucks and others has been a very contentious issue here in the UK since at least 2012.

Here is a re ent FT article from Ed Luce, a Brit based in DC.

The Democratic party has been put on notice. If it picks a pro-tax candidate to take on Donald Trump next year, a billionaire will probably enter the US presidential race as a spoiler. Whether that is Howard Schultz, the former chief executive of Starbucks, or someone else, is secondary. Any third-party plutocrat would have the means to split the vote and enable Mr Trump’s re-election. The inference is clear: a large chunk of America’s plutocracy would risk a second Trump term to keep their taxes low.

This is no trivial consideration. Independent candidates have changed the result in three of the past seven US presidential elections. Even a 1 per cent share of the vote, which is what Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, received in 2016, can tip the electoral college. Hillary Clinton won almost 3m more votes than Mr Trump. But she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,000 — roughly half of what Ms Stein garnered in those states. She spent just $3.6m in total on the 2016 race. It was enough to change history.

With a net worth of $3.4bn, Mr Schultz could spend a hundred times what Ms Stein did yet it would amount to barely a tenth of his wealth. Should Democrats nominate a candidate who would hit the likes of Mr Schultz with a wealth tax, his ability to neutralise that threat would be considerable. Even if he decided not to run, the mere prospect could intimidate Democrats into choosing a more plutocrat-friendly candidate.

Is this good for American democracy? Mr Schultz argues that US politics is broken by the “extremist” duopoly of the two-party system. Each is addicted to the “politics of revenge” rather than finding commonsense solutions to the country’s problems. It will take someone of Mr Schultz’s calibre to break the mould.

There are three weaknesses in Mr Schultz’s platform. The first is false equivalence. Nobody in the field of Democratic hopefuls compares with Mr Trump. Until the emergence of Mr Trump, neither party came close to choosing someone who was willing to allege a rigged election before it had taken place. But even before he came along, Republicans had moved far further to the right than Democrats had moved to the left. Scholars call this “asymmetric polarisation”. Defining the midpoint between the two as common sense confuses form with content.

Second, Mr Schultz’s boldness is misleading. His big idea is to disrupt a broken system. When it comes to policy, however, he is wedded to the status quo. He described a proposed 2 per cent wealth tax on those with a net worth higher than $50m and 3 per cent on those worth more than $1bn as “ridiculous”. Likewise, the Democratic “Medicare for all” healthcare proposal was “un-American”. Others in his wealth bracket agree. Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, who is worth about $40bn, said that such wealth redistribution would turn the US into Venezuela. The difference is that Mr Bloomberg is thinking of running as a Democrat.

The third weakness is the idea that people who have run a business are uniquely qualified to lead. It remains to be seen whether Mr Trump’s record will generate scepticism about that claim. He built his name in property development. Mr Schultz ran a coffee store chain. “I have a 30-year plus record of being able to solve complex problems in unique ways,” he told NPR this week. Among Mr Schultz’s prize fixes was ensuring Starbucks paid super-skinny taxes. In the UK, it paid a rate of just 2.8 per cent until it was forced by a campaign of “tax shaming” to pay a little bit more. Either way, Mr Trump seems to have spoken for other billionaires when he claimed that “I alone can fix it”.

Which begs the question, what is it that needs fixing? Mr Schultz’s view is that America’s embittered politics can only be saved by amateurs. People in politics are too compromised. Another view is that the state of US politics reflects what is happening in its economy. Acute inequality breeds oligarchy. Just as the middle class is being hollowed out, so the political middle ground is retreating. Mr Schultz epitomises that reality. That a billionaire could change the outcome in a democracy of 330m people might, in itself, be a sign of a broken system.

Letter in response to this column:
Schultz not best person to illustrate a third way / From Mark Spradley, Chevy Chase, MD, US

AKR · Post by **AKR** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:19 am

JimHow wrote:So:

Donald Trump is a political Godzilla. He is a tazmanian devil. Ask Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and about a dozen other Republicans how vulnerable Donald Trump is. I come from Lewiston, Maine, where things aren't as pretty as in the Beltway or the great liberal cities of America. Orange Head is beloved in places like this, all across America. He will employ every asset available to him in the U.S. Presidency to wreak his unique brand of fascism upon the Democratic Party. I don't know where the fake news mainstream media is getting their information. Trump has basically won every single one of his battles to date. Mueller continues to chase rainbows. Soon he will have three Supreme Court justices... incredible. He's going to have his wall... as promised. He got his tax cuts. He is winning so much he is getting tired of winning. And yet the loser Democratic Party thinks they've got him on the run because they picked up the House... while losing ground in the Senate.

True Dat: despite his lack of faith in Hayek, Rand, Friedman etc. he has outfoxed ideologically pure leaders. I can't understand how he pulls it off. Ted Cruz walks around with a copy of the US Constitution in his pocket! Captain of the Harvard Debate team! A great personal story, son of a pastor, a Cuban who has suffered under the last of godless communism, etc. A great friend to the RKBA, not one iota of weakness/compromise, unlike DJT who has admitted weakness if you read his 'books'.

Counting the SCOTUS chickens before they hatch is tricky. RBG has an iron will. She is exercising, doing yoga, etc. For her to surrender her seat to Trump would be impossible.

jal · Post by **jal** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:43 am

I see Ian. I thought you meant he was funneling money with the help of pass through entities like most hedge fund billionaires. I just didn’t read anything about that.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:19 pm

Isn't "tax avoider" the correct term? "Tax evader" usually means that the person has committed crimes. What is particularly disgusting about our system is that the mega-wealthy can legally pay taxes of 15% or less of their incomes and they can spend some of the money they have from avoiding taxes to influence the government not to close the loopholes they exploit.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:20 pm

stefan wrote:Isn't "tax avoider" the correct term? "Tax evader" usually means that the person has committed crimes. What is particularly disgusting about our system is that the mega-wealthy can legally pay taxes of 15% or less of their incomes and they can spend some of the money they have from avoiding taxes to influence the government not to close the loopholes they exploit.

Influencing the Govt.? Yes, in the name of First Amendment...

jal · Post by **jal** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:56 pm

I don't even think that tax avoider is the correct term to describe Howard Schultz. He was paid a salary and bonus annually as CEO of Starbucks. He also received stocks, stock options and restricted stock. He should and would have paid income tax on all of those based on his tax bracket (which I imagine is the top one)
Whenever he sold shares of his stocks, he should and would have paid capital gains taxes on the profits.
Whether as Stefan says he only paid 15% on this income, well, I haven't seen or heard anything to that effect. Maybe he paid a 20% tax rate on is Long Term Capital Gains but there's nothing illegal about that, and I don't see how that can be avoided. (That rate has now dropped to 15% but only for people earning less than $426,700 and he would still pay 20%).
So until I see a sign to the contrary, I will assume he is innocent of tax evasion or avoidance.
And before anyone compares his tax returns to Trump, Schultz was the CEO of a public company and his compensation is fully disclosed in that company's proxy statements. Trump's compensation remains a mystery.
Now, if we want to talk about low effective corporate taxes, that is another discussion altogether. Apple, Amazon, Google, Exxon, P&G, GE and almost every other corporation in the Western World, not just in the US, plays this game.
If we also want to speak about Schultz' qualifications as a president, that is also a separate discussion, all I will say is "relative to who?" Obviously, I'd vote for him over Trump in a heartbeat, but I am not convinced I would vote for Bernie Sanders over Schultz and I will wait to see who the Democrats pick as their candidate before making any decisions.
And last,

Comte Flaneur wrote:That a billionaire could change the outcome in a democracy of 330m people might, in itself, be a sign of a broken system.

Is a statement I agree with completely and I'm not happy about that, but instead of ranting against the system, let's be pragmatic, it comes down to the choices.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:27 pm

I think Jacques is right that Schultz might not have done anything wrong with respect to taxes. As a head of a public company, his compensation is there for everyone to see...Tax evasion is a crime and tax avoidance is not. One can take advantage of tax laws and tax planning, and avoid taxes which otherwise would have paid more. Nothing wrong with that, legally...

But I think what stefan is alluding is that the rich billionaires are influencing the legislature to have tax laws written to favor them vis a vis the middle class. If everyone is paying 20% tax rate and the rich (whose investments are primarily in stocks) pay 15%, that is tax evasion. But on the otherhand, if you have a law on the books that enables stock investors to pay 15% tax rate, that is lawful. And of course, the rich are influencing the legislature to have those types of laws on the books to favor them.

And the law of percentages bodes well too..A 1% percent decrease for the rich has far more monetary value than the same 1% percent decrease for the low/middle income folks...