Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[Libertarian01]

To my thinking the SOLE purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue - PERIOD! We can always argue as to how much or how wasteful government is, but the taxation part should simply exist to raise revenue so the .gov can do it's job (whatever that is.)

Taxation should not be to social engineer, incentivize or deincentivize, to promote or condemn actions. That is crap. If we really don't like something, criminalize it. If it's not worth criminalizing, shut the hell up and move along.

Our tax code has gotten way too out of hand.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

To my thinking the SOLE purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue - PERIOD! We can always argue as to how much or how wasteful government is, but the taxation part should simply exist to raise revenue so the .gov can do it's job (whatever that is.)

Taxation should not be to social engineer, incentivize or deincentivize, to promote or condemn actions. That is crap. If we really don't like something, criminalize it. If it's not worth criminalizing, shut the hell up and move along.

Our tax code has gotten way too out of hand.

Regards,

Doug

+10.......thats what I used to have in the magazine.

 

[KG1]

To my thinking the SOLE purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue - PERIOD! We can always argue as to how much or how wasteful government is, but the taxation part should simply exist to raise revenue so the .gov can do it's job (whatever that is.)

Taxation should not be to social engineer, incentivize or deincentivize, to promote or condemn actions. That is crap. If we really don't like something, criminalize it. If it's not worth criminalizing, shut the hell up and move along.

Our tax code has gotten way too out of hand.

Regards,

Doug

Yessir. Many people fail to realize or acknowledge that taxation has been used to affect behavior.

 

[bwframe]

No. Hillary didn't say that.

No. It wasn't a landslide.

More voters voted for Hillary. Now please don't take that as any endorsement of Hillary as it was not intended that way. And I am not suggesting that Hillary would necessarily have won if the election had been held as a popular vote. What I'm saying is that the demographics of who actually voted, and why they voted the way they did, give us a pretty good idea of just how like you everyone else is.

Trump won the states that Republicans typically win. He easily won in the demographics of people who might tend to think like you do. People in rural areas came out pretty big. Trump did better than expected with Evangelicals. Obviously, the selection of Pence didn't hurt, and probably helped in that regard. But he was able to expand the tent, so to speak. Not that that demographic would have voted for Hillary, but a few key issues made them come out for Trump much more than expected.

But Trump could not have won those states if only people who think like you do voted for him. Those people aren't conservatives. They aren't the so-called "moral majority". They liked many of the social programs of Obama. They liked Bernie Sanders. Likely, many of the non-conservatives would not have voted for Trump if Sanders had won. The point is, not everyone voted for Trump for the same reasons you voted for him. They're not of the same mind or world view you are. Thinking that because Trump won all the red states and a few blue ones doesn't suggest that you're all the same.

That said, if Trump delivers on the promises that caused blue collar/moderates to vote for him, I think he could win reelection. But don't think that the Democrats will necessarily run a turd against him like they did in 2016. If they keep going like they are now, yes, they will run a far left loonbag against Trump. But I'm not discounting the possibility that they might learn something in the next 3 years. We'll see.

...

TL/DR

Some people think that more people think like they do, than actually think like they do...​

 

[jamil]

TL/DR

Some people think that more people think like they do, than actually think like they do...​

Ah. Glad you've come to my way of thinking.

 

[T.Lex]

Why should he or any other president provide their tax returns? I've never had a job that required I provide a copy of my tax returns.

Neither you nor I have ever been POTUS.

To me, and I REALLY don't care if I'm alone in this line of thinking, that is a position with such power that the person should go the extra mile to be transparent about certain things. I don't care what they make. I want a successful person in that chair, and successful people tend to have money. In fact, if Trump weren't such a douchebag, his financial status would be a big positive to me - makes him less likely to be influenced. (His personal history and personality overcome that assumption.)

I care that they're willing to reveal their tax situation as a kind of sign of good faith about approaching the job with the right amount gravitas. (And I hate how the MSM butchered that word as a foil against Bush.). We can't know what's in his heart, but we can at least know whether he'll provide his income numbers.

Oh, and there are jobs that require that kind of disclosure, too, usually in the financial services arena. Certain kinds of employers with fiduciary obligations to clients need to know that the people they hire are somewhat immune to blackmail or bribery. Even other sensitive jobs (like certain legal positions) require disclosures that make the requirement seem trivial. No guarantees, but it is considered due diligence.

 

[jbombelli]

At one point in my life I was a securities broker (Series 7, 63) and a registered life and health insurance agent in multiple states. I did not have to provide my tax returns. If I'd filed bankruptcy I would have had to report it, but that's it as far as financial information.

 

[churchmouse]

Neither you nor I have ever been POTUS.

To me, and I REALLY don't care if I'm alone in this line of thinking, that is a position with such power that the person should go the extra mile to be transparent about certain things. I don't care what they make. I want a successful person in that chair, and successful people tend to have money. In fact, if Trump weren't such a douchebag, his financial status would be a big positive to me - makes him less likely to be influenced. (His personal history and personality overcome that assumption.)

I care that they're willing to reveal their tax situation as a kind of sign of good faith about approaching the job with the right amount gravitas. (And I hate how the MSM butchered that word as a foil against Bush.). We can't know what's in his heart, but we can at least know whether he'll provide his income numbers.

Oh, and there are jobs that require that kind of disclosure, too, usually in the financial services arena. Certain kinds of employers with fiduciary obligations to clients need to know that the people they hire are somewhat immune to blackmail or bribery. Even other sensitive jobs (like certain legal positions) require disclosures that make the requirement seem trivial. No guarantees, but it is considered due diligence.

This is not out of the box thinking. Full disclosure for anyone wanting that job. Now....about "O"s college transcripts.

 

[T.Lex]

At one point in my life I was a securities broker (Series 7, 63) and a registered life and health insurance agent in multiple states. I did not have to provide my tax returns. If I'd filed bankruptcy I would have had to report it, but that's it as far as financial information.

Not sure how far back that was, but background checks and compliance issues are incredibly onerous nowadays, at least at some firms. Heck, even some municipalities/states require disclosures of investments and such that are in some ways more revealing than the tax returns.

This is not out of the box thinking. Full disclosure for anyone wanting that job. Now....about "O"s college transcripts.

I absolutely believe those should've been released - as well as his records showing what last name he used. While not a "birther," I think he probably leveraged his step-dad's influence and cache for all sorts of benefits that he may not have been entitled to. Maybe he would've been entitled to them anyway, but it would still have been an important data point for me, personally.

 

[jamil]

Neither you nor I have ever been POTUS.

To me, and I REALLY don't care if I'm alone in this line of thinking, that is a position with such power that the person should go the extra mile to be transparent about certain things. I don't care what they make. I want a successful person in that chair, and successful people tend to have money. In fact, if Trump weren't such a douchebag, his financial status would be a big positive to me - makes him less likely to be influenced. (His personal history and personality overcome that assumption.)

I care that they're willing to reveal their tax situation as a kind of sign of good faith about approaching the job with the right amount gravitas. (And I hate how the MSM butchered that word as a foil against Bush.). We can't know what's in his heart, but we can at least know whether he'll provide his income numbers.

Oh, and there are jobs that require that kind of disclosure, too, usually in the financial services arena. Certain kinds of employers with fiduciary obligations to clients need to know that the people they hire are somewhat immune to blackmail or bribery. Even other sensitive jobs (like certain legal positions) require disclosures that make the requirement seem trivial. No guarantees, but it is considered due diligence.

Then make it a law. If it's not important enough to make it legally required, then people need to calm down about it. The only problem I have with Trump's failure to make public his tax returns is that he promised to do it. It stands yet as a broken promise. I would have accepted it if he'd just said he's not going to release his returns and would just have his accountants summarize. Lying, saying you'll do something you have no intention to do, I'm not okay with.

 

[T.Lex]

Then make it a law. If it's not important enough to make it legally required, then people need to calm down about it. The only problem I have with Trump's failure to make public his tax returns is that he promised to do it. It stands yet as a broken promise. I would have accepted it if he'd just said he's not going to release his returns and would just have his accountants summarize. Lying, saying you'll do something you have no intention to do, I'm not okay with.

That's part of why I don't want it to be a law - it shouldn't NEED to be a law.

If they release it, its a character data point. If they say they won't release, then its a character data point. If they say they'll release it, then don't, that's a character data point. Making it a legal requirement removes the insight into their character.

 

[jamil]

That's part of why I don't want it to be a law - it shouldn't NEED to be a law.

If they release it, its a character data point. If they say they won't release, then its a character data point. If they say they'll release it, then don't, that's a character data point. Making it a legal requirement removes the insight into their character.

We're on the same page then. I think it's 334. Paragraph 4.

 

[T.Lex]

We're on the same page then. I think it's 334. Paragraph 4.

That's weird. Mine's on page 7. But, I'm too cheap to get the new book. You must be in the New Edition.

(Yes, that's a LONG way to go for a really bad joke.)

 

[jamil]

That's weird. Mine's on page 7. But, I'm too cheap to get the new book. You must be in the New Edition.

(Yes, that's a LONG way to go for a really bad joke.)

It's okay. Recently I've become accustomed to being disappointed after a big buildup. It started with Al Capone's vault. Then Maddow's fizzled Trumptax reveal. Now T.Lex.

 

[KLB]

It's okay. Recently I've become accustomed to being disappointed after a big buildup. It started with Al Capone's vault. Then Maddow's fizzled Trumptax reveal. Now T.Lex.

 

[T.Lex]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

 

[indiucky]

Got him for you...That's some funny **** right there......

Here's the new edition of the new edition.....

 

[Woobie]

It's okay. Recently I've become accustomed to being disappointed after a big buildup.

They make pills for that.

 

[jbombelli]

Not sure how far back that was, but background checks and compliance issues are incredibly onerous nowadays, at least at some firms. Heck, even some municipalities/states require disclosures of investments and such that are in some ways more revealing than the tax returns.


I absolutely believe those should've been released - as well as his records showing what last name he used. While not a "birther," I think he probably leveraged his step-dad's influence and cache for all sorts of benefits that he may not have been entitled to. Maybe he would've been entitled to them anyway, but it would still have been an important data point for me, personally.

Background checks Yeah. Compliance Yeah. Investment disclosures Yeah, for conflict of interest reasons (forgot about this one), but tax records were not required.

 

[Joe G]

So it's now President Donald J. Trump. He gets a clean slate. He starts out with a 100% approval rating from me. However, as his presidency continues, I will rate his actions. It may go down, it may go up (if less than 100), but I will explain why he loses or gains points. I figure this is the best way to do this rather than post numerous individual threads about his presidency. Good natured debate is welcome, bad natured debate is not, and if pervasive without moderator intervention, I'll simply go back to my original plan and post a bunch of "Trump" threads.

Other member's ratings are welcome.

Anyways.

Trump Approval Rating: 94.2

1/22/2017- Announcement of not releasing taxes, even after completing audit -2
1/23/2017 -Withdrawal from TPP (+0.5 since it never was enacted), reminding American funds from foreign interests (+1) = +1.5
1/28/2017 -Immigration and Visa EO -4
1/29/2017 -Removal of Chairman of Joint Chiefs and Director of National Intelligence as permanent members of the National Security Council and the addition of Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, as permanent member to the body -1
2/1/2017 -Announcement of Gorsuch as SCOTUS replacement +1
2/1/2017 -Unannounced trip to visit family of first soldier KIA under his watch +0.2
2/14/2017 - Resignation of incompetent National Security Advisor (M. Flynn) -1
2/16/2017 - Request that Israel slow down on settlements +0.5
2/22/2017 - Trump rescinds Trangender bathroom protections, and leaves it up to the individual states +1
2/24/2017 - Exclusion of specific media outlets from the White House Press Room -2

Haven't followed this thread for a while, but see Kut hasn't updated his score in a while.

How's DJT doing for you recently?