Not a phycologist, but suspect bullies tend to lean towards pedophilia. Children are easier to control.
Trump is clearly a bully, and associated with someone that provided young girls to others.
Trump also does not seem to have any moral compass, or ethics.
I’m not sure what his proclivities are, but I can guess.
Picking on helpless algae you mean?
Lichen share…
I know him! He’s a very social werewolf.
As opposed to a lichen misanthrope I suppose.
The Orange Felon gives one of his “perfect” speeches to a bunch of CEOs at the Business Roundtable quarterly meeting last Thursday. The CEOs – some of whom came into the meeting somewhat favourably disposed to Trump – came away with the impression that he’s a blithering imbecile who might be suffering from dementia:
The judge has ruled not to put “Free Speech Systems” (those are finger-quotes) into chapter 7, according to NPR today.
But the judge denied the request by some families to also put Jones’s company in the hands of a Chapter 7 trustee. The company, Free Speech Systems, which produces Jones’s Infowars show, filed for bankruptcy separately from Jones.
Apparently this is what some of the families, as well as Jones, wanted, because they feel it would result in more money more quickly. I guess in either case, they will cease doing business, which is the main thing? (note: copied EddyTeddyFreddy’s post because it seemed to be the last relevant post in this thread on this topic).
Yes, but will they still give him money?
Absolutely. Rich conservatives are lining up behind him because their tax rates aren’t in the single digits yet.
Let me fix that for ya,
Rich conservatives are lining up behind him because their tax rates aren’t in the single negative digits yet.
My first thought reading this was the best way to cause the conservatives to lose their shit is to propose a negative tax rate for those earning below average income and a positive rate for those above.
But seriously, that wouldn’t be the worst way to implement some kind of Universal Basic Income.
Define whatever level you want the UBI to be at, and use tax rebates to top up anyone who is below that level. Have a buffer for people just above that rate who essentially pay zero taxes, and then have a progressive tax rate kick in at some higher level. Make it so there’s still an incentive to work, because you can make more than the bare minimum UBI, but piggyback on the existing tax return infrastructure so as to minimize the associated costs of running the program.
I see I need to up my game to cause conservative loss of shit.
How about positive tax rates for white, Christian, straight males and negative rates for everyone else, regardless of income?
Huh. It doesn’t have legs and never will, but I’d like to look at that Idea.
It would hurt me money wise. My wife and I are DINKS. But I’m ok with that idea.
Not at all. Sensible humane policies that impede the gathering of all wealth into the top 1%-of-1% hands are a more powerful shit-loss inducer than Dulcolax washed down with castor oil.
Make it progressive, meaning higher the income = larger percentage for the tax. It would get more support.
If a person is receiving more in public assistance than they’re paying in taxes, then they effectively have a negative tax rate. So that’s already happening.
And yeah, conservatives sometimes lose their shit over it.
That’s not what tax means, but you already knew that.
Not being an economist or particularly knowledgeable about tax law, as a layman, I have to say it holds a certain amount of appeal. I’m sure there are unintended consequences that could be hashed out in a separate thread or something? But it doesn’t seem like a terrible starting point.
That’s why I used the word “effectively” rather than “literally”. You are receiving more from the government than you are paying in.
Which for people on the low end is how things should work to me, and conservatives do get pissed off about it.