Time Magazine: Hillary voters should threaten to not pay taxes.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Sums up the leftist collective perfectly. I could say something like maybe the red counties can stop sending food to the blue urban areas. Then sit back and watch after 3 days when the food runs out. But I would not wish something like that on my fellow Americans. It is a shame that leftists are such whiny little bitches that they dream of the destruction of the U.S. just because the large urban areas vote differently than the majority (electorally speaking) of Americans. Where is moonbeam and his speeches on self hate when you need them.

That's some mealy mouthed bullshit right there. One asshole's opinion does not define libs & progs in the slightest.

"Destruction of America"? WTF? Repubs have been tearing down the principles of Democracy, the thing that holds us all together, for decades. Hatin' on de Gubmint! Luvin' them Jerb Creators!

And that's an astoundingly phony & divisive notion of a "majority" you invoke. It's simulated rationality at its finest.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
There have been many, who have gone before, who have learned the painful lesson, that one must pay their taxes. I remember back in the 80's there were people who were teaching people how to avoid paying taxes and how to defend themselves against prosecution. It didn't work out too well for them.

I wonder if Time is prepared to pay for the legal expenses of the tax evaders?

Hah hahhah! With my blood pressure up this morning, I still have to laugh at the irony of this.

Last year, the Prez-Elect-Jackass demonstrated his bad example on this issue with his wording: "I pay as little as possible." That expression has a different tint to it than "I pay what I owe -- no more, no less."

Then, like the disgusting little monster he is, he had the nerve to snow his more naïve followers with the lie that his "loss carryovers" for the 20 years of annual tax deductions was an act of genius.

Any retired pauper who owns a piece of rental property and prepares his own taxes knows all about "loss carryovers," "passive losses," "active participation" and other aspects of the tax code.

It is not a mark of genius. It is only a trait of an active mind unafraid to apply himself to preparation of his own returns. Think about it: The reason Trump can so easily make this boast probably derives from the fact that he's never completed a tax-return by his own hand. Otherwise, he would be more calculating in his choices of what to say in self-congratulatory boasting.

Romney truly is a hypocrite. But he was right.

Trump is a fraud. The extent of his fraud may prove out, if he doesn't interfere in the routine and non-partisan operations of daily government.

How likely is it that he would show such restraint? If it would be difficult or impossible to show him guilty of a crime against the Law, it is criminal that the asshole was ever born.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I recollect you mentioned you did some while back, and prolly had college paid for as a result. An employer of last resort, education benefits, defense factories/facilities in the middle of nowhere which can't be outsourced are some of the lucrative half trillion plus a year benefits.
This is why liberals lose elections. You lack the conviction to state your beliefs in plain, direct language. You just spent a paragraph passive aggressively alluding to what you really want to say which is:

Military service is white welfare

If that is your belief come out and say it. It wouldn't offend me either way. I never heard a shot fired in anger. I received a fair trade for my service. I chose to serve because I believe you should have a right to speak your mind even if I don't agree with what you have to say. I would gladly do so again.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
This is why liberals lose elections. You lack the conviction to state your beliefs in plain, direct language. You just spent a paragraph passive aggressively alluding to what you really want to say which is:

Military service is white welfare

If that is your belief come out and say it. It wouldn't offend me either way. I never heard a shot fired in anger. I received a fair trade for my service. I chose to serve because I believe you should have a right to speak your mind even if I don't agree with what you have to say. I would gladly do so again.
We've had quite a few crazies post on this forum over the years but this guy takes the cake. You aren't dealing with a sane person here...just saying.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
This is why liberals lose elections. You lack the conviction to state your beliefs in plain, direct language. You just spent a paragraph passive aggressively alluding to what you really want to say which is:

Military service is white welfare

If that is your belief come out and say it. It wouldn't offend me either way. I never heard a shot fired in anger. I received a fair trade for my service. I chose to serve because I believe you should have a right to speak your mind even if I don't agree with what you have to say. I would gladly do so again.

Oh shit. I thought he just meant regular old welfare as more white people are on it than any other race. Here he actually means military service. Does he not realize that there is a really good mix of races that serve in the military? And why is everything about race with him? I guess he was born with racist contact lenses because he can't view any topic without race being called into question. Quite sad, especially for being such a self-proclaimed intellectual.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
We've had quite a few crazies post on this forum over the years but this guy takes the cake. You aren't dealing with a sane person here...just saying.
I think he has an interesting perspective. I don't always understand it, and would find the life experiences that shaped it interesting, but I respect his willingness to have a conversation.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think he has an interesting perspective. I don't always understand it, and would find the life experiences that shaped it interesting, but I respect his willingness to have a conversation.
I too would love to know the details of his life and how they molded such a human being.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
To me, Time Magazine has lost all legitimacy by putting Trump's mug on its cover and declaring him "Man of the Year." I'm never going to open that rag again (not that I've done so for quite some time).
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,476
523
126
People contending that Hillary won because she got more popular votes amaze me. That's not what either candidate was going for, they were going for electoral votes. If they were going for more votes total, they both would have campaigned that way. Could she still have gotten more? Sure. Could he have? Possibly. The fact is neither were trying for that. If they were, Trump wouldn't have visited a state with extremely low population, while Hillary ignored it. Trump won the state and its few votes. He would have likely spent more time in high population areas, as she would have.

Trying to change the rules after the fact is being a sore loser and trying to claim victory when they didn't win. Like a team losing while "playing" better. Having more yards total, more first downs, etc. While having less points on the board. Having more numbers is still a loss, points matter. Holding on to the popular vote is extremely pathetic. Like a team losing but saying they won because more yards.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
People contending that Hillary won because she got more popular votes amaze me. That's not what either candidate was going for, they were going for electoral votes. If they were going for more votes total, they both would have campaigned that way. Could she still have gotten more? Sure. Could he have? Possibly. The fact is neither were trying for that. If they were, Trump wouldn't have visited a state with extremely low population, while Hillary ignored it. Trump won the state and its few votes. He would have likely spent more time in high population areas, as she would have.

Trying to change the rules after the fact is being a sore loser and trying to claim victory when they didn't win. Like a team losing while "playing" better. Having more yards total, more first downs, etc. While having less points on the board. Having more numbers is still a loss, points matter. Holding on to the popular vote is extremely pathetic. Like a team losing but saying they won because more yards.

Please. Win/lose isn't really a constructive way to look at it, but I'm not sure that matters to people charging off towards the right fringe no matter how victory is achieved.

All things considered, it's extremely arrogant to act that way.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Please. Win/lose isn't really a constructive way to look at it, but I'm not sure that matters to people charging off towards the right fringe no matter how victory is achieved.

All things considered, it's extremely arrogant to act that way.

In the words of obummer "elections have consequences". He won the election and now he's going to get to try to push his agenda for 4 years just like every other president before has done.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
To me, Time Magazine has lost all legitimacy by putting Trump's mug on its cover and declaring him "Man of the Year." I'm never going to open that rag again (not that I've done so for quite some time).

You might want to read up on what 'person of the year' actually means. Hint: it's not an award.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
The answer for the disgruntled is very obvious. Organize, put forth worthy candidates and win elections next time. Having a conniption fit over this election isn't going to change the outcome.

I hear talk about protesters going to DC to shut down the Inaugeration. What does that even mean?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In the words of obummer "elections have consequences". He won the election and now he's going to get to try to push his agenda for 4 years just like every other president before has done.

Obama did not have a radical agenda. Trump & the Repubs obviously do. I doubt it will be the agenda his fans thought they were voting for, either.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
You might want to read up on what 'person of the year' actually means. Hint: it's not an award.

As someone who deeply despises the toxic choice made on November 8 on grounds having nothing to do with policy, politics, ideology or anything else except psychological profile and character, I think some of us are missing the point of the TIME cover.

To me, the TIME staff nailed it:

"President of the Divided States of America."

That says all I would have wanted said, barring a cover shared by Trump and Dylan Roof.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Obama did not have a radical agenda.
Yeah sure. "Fundamentally Transforming America" wasn't radical at all.

Trump & the Repubs obviously do.
So "Fundamentally Transforming America" is only good when you agree with the guy doing it? :D

It's funny to me how when conservatives told you liberals that such things were shitty ideas because it wouldn't always be "your guy" doing the 'fundamental transforming' you were of course too short sighted to see that:

"It won't always be your guy doing the fundamental Transforming!"

Now enjoy the other side getting to do the same overreaching bullshit you assumed only the side you agree with would ever do.


But as I said, it's going to be entertaining as hell these next 4 years of Small Government Liberals! :D
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yeah sure. "Fundamentally Transforming America" wasn't radical at all.


So "Fundamentally Transforming America" is only good when you agree with the guy doing it? :D

It's funny to me how when conservatives told you liberals that such things were shitty ideas because it wouldn't always be "your guy" doing the 'fundamental transforming' you were of course too short sighted to see that:

"It won't always be your guy doing the fundamental Transforming!"

Now enjoy the other side getting to do the same overreaching bullshit you assumed only the side you agree with would ever do.


But as I said, it's going to be entertaining as hell these next 4 years of Small Government Liberals! :D

Slogans are one thing. Deeds are another. I mean, America was great in 1894, wasn't it?
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Because the US money isn't real, the solvency of the USA does not lie in taxation, it's numbers on a scoreboard. So the Federal government doesn't face fiscal harm if people don't pay their taxes, it will just make for a few more jobs at the IRS to get it sorted out.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Hah hahhah! With my blood pressure up this morning, I still have to laugh at the irony of this.

Last year, the Prez-Elect-Jackass demonstrated his bad example on this issue with his wording: "I pay as little as possible." That expression has a different tint to it than "I pay what I owe -- no more, no less."

Then, like the disgusting little monster he is, he had the nerve to snow his more naïve followers with the lie that his "loss carryovers" for the 20 years of annual tax deductions was an act of genius.

Any retired pauper who owns a piece of rental property and prepares his own taxes knows all about "loss carryovers," "passive losses," "active participation" and other aspects of the tax code.

It is not a mark of genius. It is only a trait of an active mind unafraid to apply himself to preparation of his own returns. Think about it: The reason Trump can so easily make this boast probably derives from the fact that he's never completed a tax-return by his own hand. Otherwise, he would be more calculating in his choices of what to say in self-congratulatory boasting.

Romney truly is a hypocrite. But he was right.

Trump is a fraud. The extent of his fraud may prove out, if he doesn't interfere in the routine and non-partisan operations of daily government.

How likely is it that he would show such restraint? If it would be difficult or impossible to show him guilty of a crime against the Law, it is criminal that the asshole was ever born.

Wow! I was talking about people who have tried to evade taxes, and look at you going off on a tangent, getting all wrapped around the axle with crazy rhetoric, while I didn't even so much as use Trump's name in my post. Your mental health might need some checking, pal.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
What is incorrect/biased/fake about that statement given the context of who was named as person of the year?

What makes America any more divided today than most other elections? I can give Obama a pass since 2008 was a landslide in recent terms and invigorated new voting bases, but otherwise? Elections are almost inherently dividing. Millions of Americans get together, kneel to their candidate, and when the results come in, they either orgasm or wretch in partisan fervor, which gradually subsides for most Americans until the next election cycle. Doing a quick Google, most other Person of the Year covers simply show a face and a name, they don't feel a need to qualify the election.