RSS

Tag Archives: President

Why People Choose to Believe in the False Rape Lawsuit Against Trump and Why People Choose to Ignore Hillary Clinton’s Successful Defense of a Rapist in the Rape Case of Kathy Shelton

This election year has been insane, no doubt about it. I’m just ready for it to be over so we can all start dealing with the aftermath of whoever wins, but until then, I came across an OccupyDemocrats video on a friend’s Facebook post speaking about the rape lawsuit filed against Donald Trump. I looked it up myself, first Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/), the California lawsuit filed in April 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit), and the New York based lawsuit filed by the same person in June 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits) which was then voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in September 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/document/324233182/Jane-Doe-v-Donald-J-Trump-and-Jeffrey-E-Epstein), only to be filed AGAIN in September 2016 for a third lawsuit.This is such a huge mess, here’s the docket from both those New York lawsuits.

June 2016 Lawsuit Docket, Voluntarily Dismissed

docket1

September 2016 Docket, Still Pending

docket2

(James Cheney Mason was co-counsel for Casey Anthony in 2011.)

Here’s more court docs: the California in forma pauperis filing (https://www.scribd.com/doc/310836504/Katie-Johnson-Trump-Lawsuit), the New York amended complaint, the second docket filed September 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/document/326057027/Amended-Complaint-Filed-9-30-2016), the Jane Doe declaration as filed in June 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/document/326057168/Jane-Doe-Declaration-as-Filed), the Tiffany Doe declaration as filed in June 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/document/326057237/Tiffany-Doe-Declaration), and the Voluntary dismissal of Jane Doe’s New York lawsuit in September 2016 (https://www.scribd.com/document/324233182/Jane-Doe-v-Donald-J-Trump-and-Jeffrey-E-Epstein).

Now, here are the facts and the confusing parts about them:

  1. Jane Doe was 13 years old in 1994.
  2. In summer of 1994, Jane Doe attended several parties hosted by Epstein in which Trump attended. Why she continued to attend these parties after the first sexual assault is beyond any victim who has been sexually assaulted.
  3. Jane Doe attended these parties on the promises of money and a modeling contract. Her main goal, despite the alleged sexual assaults and rapes and the sodomy that occurred on at least 4 separate occasions was money and a modeling contract. If she continued going to these parties where she experienced these so called horrible sexual things against her will…why did she keep attending? No one held a gun to her head and made her go. She attended out of her own free will because of her own greed and wanting a modeling career.
  4. Other underage girls were said to be in attendance of these parties for the same reason.
  5. Tiffany Doe had promised to pay Jane Doe for attending said parties, however, it’s unclear as to whether payment was made. It can only be assumed that payment was made as Jane Doe continued to attend these parties after the first occasion of where she claimed to be sexually assaulted by Trump.
  6. Tiffany Doe recruited Jane Doe to attended said parties.
  7. Jane Doe alleges that she was sexually assaulted and raped by Trump and Epstein on four and two separate occasions, respectively. It was said in the first court document that Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by Epstein on three occasions in which the third resulted in Epstein raping her.
  8. In the first court filing, Tiffany Doe was said to have witnessed or was made aware of three sexual assaults against Jane Doe by Epstein and would be testifying to that fact. However, in Tiffany Doe’s declaration, Tiffany Doe stated that she personally witnessed or was immediately made aware of two occasions in which Epstein had sexually abused Jane Doe.
  9. Both Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe alleges that a 12 year old Maria Doe was murdered by Trump and Epstein.
  10. Jane Doe’s June 2016 informa pauperis filing reveals that she has not held a job since 2008, in which she neither paid taxes and only made $200-$300 per month as a freelance model in 2008. This is a huge cause for concern. Here is someone who doesn’t seem to have any source of income and hasn’t been employed in over 8 years and lives in California. Yet, she is asking for $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars) in damages for willingly attending said parties over the course of four months in summer of 1994 in which she alleges that she was sexually assaulted and raped against her will, of which parties she was promised and allegedly paid for attending and continued to attend. So here is someone who does not hold a job, has not held a job, more likely doesn’t even want to hold a job, yet is greedy, greedy enough to attend paid parties as a teenager where she alleges to have been a victim of sexual abuse but continues going to these parties because of money and because of wanting a modeling career.

There are many things wrong with this court case, or series of related court cases. The biggest thing is discrepancies and lies. Discrepancies such as the number of times Jane Doe had been sexually abused by Epstein. Lies included the address and phone number filed in court papers for Jane Doe in California which led to an abandoned property and the phone number went straight to voice mail. Lies also included the alleged conspiracy between Epstein and Trump concerning Jane Doe by making her their sex slave. Dictionary.com defines a sex slave as, “a person who is forced into prostitution and held against their will” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sex-slave). Jane Doe willingly attended paid parties over the course of several months in which she was never confined nor held prisoner against her will by either Epstein nor Trump. She was not a sex slave by any means and was never forced into prostitution. Through her own greed, she willingly took money in payment for attending such parties and giving sex. If she was ever sexually assaulted against her will, she would’ve immediately stopped attending such parties like any normal person who have encountered a traumatic event and distanced herself from Tiffany Doe, Epstein, Trump, and such places. Jane Doe admitted to attending at least four separate parties, at which ever time, she could have just stopped attending but she chose to go.

In 1994, Jane Doe, being only 13 years old, said she traveled to New York City, assuming from California, to pursue a modeling career. Jane Doe did not mention whether she was traveling alone or with a parent or guardian, but I find it incredibly hard to believe someone at that age traveled alone across a country without a job, a guardian, a place to stay, and money. So where were Jane Doe’s parents in all of this? Were they aware of their little girl attending parties or being gone for lengths of time away from them? This is pretty far fetched, that a parent would allow their child to travel across a country alone without any financial means nor means of getting around. Greyhound does not allow unaccompanied minors between ages 8-14 to travel alone on a trip longer than five hours (https://services.greyhound.com/en/ticketsandtravel/childrentraveling.aspx) along with other conditions that have to be met. So if Jane Doe traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 alone, she would’ve have to only been living within a five hour radius which excludes California.

According to Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe, another minor, Maria Doe, was seen once and then disappeared, allegedly murdered by Epstein and Trump and used at a later date to force Jane Doe into another sexual assault at another party which Jane Doe keeps attending willingly. It’s hard to believe that Trump has killed anyone, because he hasn’t. He has never made anyone disappear nor has anyone in his present company disappeared, nor have any witnesses testifying against him in various lawsuits and scandals have mysteriously committed suicide and the whole lot, unlike Hillary Clinton who has an entire list of dead bodies to account for. To allege that Trump has killed a 12 year old child, it’s interesting to wonder why there isn’t a missing child report on this 12 year old Maria Doe or why Trump and Epstein didn’t just kill Jane Doe when they were done with her. It’s interesting why they just didn’t kill her now. It would make sense that she’s still alive, if she even existed in the first place, because they’re not killers and they never have been. If Maria Doe was 12 in 1994 and mysteriously vanished as alleged, someone would’ve reported her missing. In 1994, Missingkids.com reported 7 cases of children missing from June 1994 to December 1994 (http://www.missingkids.com/search), none of them the correct age for a Maria Doe and none of them missing around the correct time.

Tiffany Doe, allegedly employed by Epstein for over ten years as a party planner, in which one of which her duties included trafficking young girls to his alleged sex parties, is not a reliable witness. Tiffany Doe, according to her own declaration, is at best someone who entices and pays young girls to attend parties where sexual activities occur, or at worst, is a sex trafficker of young girls. I can’t decide which she is yet, if she too, exists. In 1990, when Tiffany Doe was 22, she attended a series of parties held by Epstein in which she was paid to entertain his guests. Pretty much, she prostituted herself. In 1991, she was promoted from a prostitute to a party planner in which her duties were to get attractive adolescent girls to attend the same parties she prostituted herself at, entertaining Epstein’s guests. Number eleven of her declaration states: “It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests”. Jane Doe states in the California filed court documents that there have been “scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump” at these sex parties. Now, it’s hard to imagine one person being able to witness the interaction between these scores of teenagers and pre-teen girls being sexually assaulted by Epstein and Trump. Apparently, there’s no other guests, thank goodness, otherwise, Tiffany Doe would have a really difficult time trying to be in many places at once. Where are these scores of teenagers and pre-teen girls that were used at sex slaves by Epstein and Trump at these sex parties? Did they all disappear like Maria Doe? Why again was Jane Doe the only one who hasn’t disappeared? And is being paid to willingly attend sex parties really against someone’s will? Afterall, Tiffany Doe admitted to prostituting herself to Epstein and many of his clients before being employed by him into hiring other girls, a decade younger than she was, to attend the same parties entertaining guests with sexual activities.

California doesn’t have the same laws as New York. In New York, it’s considered rape to have sex with anyone under seventeen, even if that sex was consensual. Moving courts from California to New York, Jane Doe specifically states that law because even if she did consent to being paid for sex, as was Tiffany Doe’s job of hiring her for such alleged sex parties, it would make her consent void and therefore, it would be rape under New York Penal Code § 130.05(3)(a). Isn’t this interesting because as a defense, Hillary Clinton said that the rape victim Kathy Shelton was ” emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing” and therefore, was ordered to undergo extensive psychiatric testing at the age of 12 (https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor). Clinton talked down the pleas from rape to a lesser charge that carried five years, four of which was suspended to probation.

So, there’s this alleged rape lawsuit of a 13 year old against Trump in which everyone wants to shout out how horrible of a person Trump is while Clinton defended the 41 year old rapist of a 12 year old girl and successfully lowered his sentence to a year in prison and no one wants to get upset about that?

Yesterday, I was having a discussion with a friend on Facebook about people being upset on how Trump bragged twelve years ago that because he’s rich and well known, women let him do whatever he wanted with them. The person said people were upset that Trump was outright bragging about sexually assaulting women without their consent. In actuality, Trump specifically said that the women allowed him to do whatever he wanted, so that meant that they did give consent. And that’s pretty much the same thing that is happening here. People want to see what they want to see. And unfortunately, they want to add whatever else they believe according to their own biases against someone that makes things worse than they are.

Finally, my friend said, “I’m actually far more concerned by the fact that Trump seems to be a fraud and an idiot, lacking both even a basic understanding of civics and foreign policy.

I replied with, “I’m concerned with the piles of bodies Hillary Clinton has left in her wake (along with her husband), the many women she’s silenced who have been having some kind of sexual affair with her husband, her incessant wish for a Third World War, nuclear war no less, her ties and financial donations from terrorist countries and companies that would benefit greatly in profit from a war, her mental stability and health, her election fraud, her emails and her lies…so yeah, I’d rather take someone a bit green with no experience than a war hungry, cold and calculating person who will destroy us for profit.

To which my friend conveniently just ignores…like how everyone else seems to ignore all the ugly and bad about Clinton and still want to vote for her anyway. If people’s only concerns about Trump being unfit for President because he’s a narcissistic asshole who likes to brag about how he can get any woman he wants because he’s rich and famous and who isn’t well versed in civics and foreign policy, then hell, I would rather take that narcissistic asshole who likes to brag about how he can get any woman he wants because he’s rich and famous and who isn’t well versed in civics and foreign policy over a calculated, greedy, murderous, warmongering, lying, cheating, corrupt asshole whose only good virtue is that she has a vagina and we’ve never had a vagina for President. Besides, the President has an entire cabinet of advisors who can help him or her make decisions. That’s their job and that’s why they’re there. The President doesn’t need to be a know-it-all. Neither Trump nor Clinton knows it all and that’s okay. But why really, do people hate Trump so much even if Hillary is basically the devil in disguise?

Trump is racist. Yeah, so is every single person in the world. We’re all racist against something, against someone, against a crap ton of things. I’m really racist against humans because there’s not enough zombies out there eating their brains. Stupid humans. Still, Trump wants to build a wall and limit illegal immigration and that suddenly makes him racist against Hispanics. There’s millions and millions of illegal immigrants in the United States. My mother believes Trump wants to kick out every person of color and leave all white people, which is why she hates him and which is also not true at all. Many people, like my mother, due to personal biases passing around and misinformation, believes that Trump will try to deport every person of color who is illegal, a resident, and even a citizen. Because of misinformation and fear, they hate him. Also ignorance. There is so much ignorance that goes into hating Trump. Most people don’t care enough to learn anything about him more than from the snippets of biased news and media they hear or see or memes on Facebook that they read. Yeah, he’s a jerk, they all concluded. But hey assholes, we’re all jerks, period. And maybe that, that realization that we’re all assholes is what doesn’t sit with people comfortably about Trump. He doesn’t care for the bullshit facade that people pretend they are. He doesn’t care to pretend to be someone he’s not. He’s real, like you and me. Trump makes people uncomfortable because in Trump, people see the shitty person they are, the one they hide from the public view, and they can’t live with themselves knowing they are indeed assholes. Jesus Christ, people. It’s okay to be an asshole. It’s okay to be human.

People say that Trump is the epitome of hatred. I find it funny that these same people are hating on Trump. I have never seen so many hate posts about someone that people don’t even know and most blatantly say they don’t care to know, they simply hate him. I’ve seen people talk about how racist Trump is and how he kicks people of color out of his rallies. One thing that all these people fail to mention is how the people that Trump kicked out of his rallies are protestors. No one talks about how wrong it is for Black Lives Matter folks to interrupt peaceful gatherings and even take the mic from presenters to start spouting their message, but Trump is racist because he kicks out protestors at his own rallies? People are fucking idiots. Calling someone a racist because they don’t agree with you doesn’t make them a racist. Trump isn’t racist because he throws out black kids shouting Black Lives Matter or people using profanity at his rallies. He has a right to a peaceful gathering without assholes trying to infringe on his right. And it’s absolutely that: assholes wanting to infringe on other people’s rights.

Everyone is an asshole. They can pretend not to be. The 30 black students all dressed in black at the Trump rally in Valdosta, Georgia were protestors and by right, should be kicked out. I don’t feel pity that they were kicked out. I don’t give a damn about the color of their skin. Their purpose was clear, to protest.

Some time ago, a Black Lives Matter co-founder was demanding that all cops be removed from black neighborhoods. I was tired of the fake racism bullshit, so I posted on Facebook saying that we should give them what they want, that we should take all cops out of black neighborhoods, and let black people kill themselves. It is a statistical fact that the majority of black people die from homicide and that the majority of homicides in black communities are committed by other black people. What the Black Lives Matter co-founder was asking was essentially, death to all black people. Of course, people got upset. I was called a racist. And no matter how I explained it and no matter what facts I pointed them to, I was just a mean, horrible racist person who wanted all black people dead. I didn’t even say I wanted black people dead. I said they can kill themselves. Big difference. And yes, they will die if all cops are taken out of black neighborhoods because cops are the ones that are actually saving black lives.

Three people unfriended me and because I actually did care about them at one point in time, it hurt me. I was wondering why they couldn’t see that the majority of black deaths is caused by violence from other black people. They only saw that white people killed black people. Black people killed black people, but of course that didn’t matter because it had to be racism that killed black people, not black people killing each other. And it’s this ignorance and blatant stupidity of refusing to believe that black are racist and Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group that produces fucking idiots like the people who unfriended me. I wasn’t shouting slogans of killing black people. I wasn’t destroying property, rioting in the streets, interrupting other people’s daily businesses, stopping traffic, aggressively and even violently protesting at peaceful gatherings, trying to burn black people alive, ordering that black people should be killed, hanged, and the picture posted to Twitter or some social media outlet…I wasn’t doing any of these things. Black people were doing these things against white people, but everyone else is racist? I utterly hate the bullshit racism lie. There is no systematic or institutional racism in America. There is no white privilege. If anything, white people are being systematically and institutionally discriminated against, by law, in favor of black people and minorities. Yet, black people cannot be racist. Black people can act like criminals and because they’re black, it’s racist if they’re jailed. I utterly hate this bullshit racism propaganda that does not exist.

And it does not exist because if black people were ever at a disadvantage because of their skin color, then we wouldn’t have a black president or black congress members or rich black people or black doctors or black justices or black cops or black governors and black mayors and BET. Yeah, BET. Of course the Oscars can be racist because there’s white people there, but BET can’t be racist because it’s full of black people and black people by their own skin color, can’t be racist? Fucking come on, ignorant and stupid people! Everyone is such a fucking asshole, I absolutely hate how people want to try and pretend they’re not like Trump when they are exactly like Trump except Trump doesn’t give a shit about being an asshole. He doesn’t play the fucking victim card or the vagina card or the race card or whatever fucking card assholes play to get everyone else to feel sorry for them. I’m a fucking asshole and I keep telling people that. It’s amazing that people keep fucking ignoring me and pretend to be surprised when I don’t fall in line with the media bullshit racist we hate all white people and we love all black people even if they’re fucking acting like crazy assholes. Yeah, I don’t give a shit about someone’s skin color. Be real. Don’t fucking play me for empathy. Don’t fucking pretend you’re owed free shit for things that happened hundreds of years ago to not you, and fucking be responsible and own up to your shit. I hate the racism bullshit lie and I will gladly be fucking racist against every stupid human being because they are fucking stupid and stupid does not help advance any species.

So anyways, got off topic there, but that’s my rant. To all you Trump haters who pretend like you’re not a hater, go look in a mirror because you are so totally hating for no reason other than snippets of media lies and crap you see on Facebook. To all the people who pretend that they’re not racist assholes, go look in a mirror because you are totally racist and an asshole. Own up to it. Fucking be you, whoever horrible, awful person you are, and be loud and proud of it. And that is why people hate Trump, because they are as ugly and hateful and racist as they say he is. They just don’t want to admit it because unlike Trump who has always been his asshole self, they are still pretending they’re the good guys. There are no fucking good guys. Remember, superheroes do not exist.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 30, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Next American President And Where I Fit Into All of This

I was never a Republican. I was always a Democrat, thinking, Democrats are for the people, that’s why they called themselves Democrats. It’s a bad word relation that unless I knew what they were and what they stood for, I was just simply going on word familiarity.

What I learned about politics came from family and friends and their expressed opinions and views about the presidential and congressional debates. Stuff I don’t really care too much about so I take everyone at their word for it. My family and friends aren’t idiots. They know what they’re talking about. Facebook memes just helps to push their view points across.

According to EnkiVillage’s 10 Differences Between Democrats and Republicans (http://www.enkivillage.com/differences-between-democrats-and-republicans.html), my personal viewpoint is Democratic for numbers 3,5,6,7, and 9. That means that my viewpoint is Republican for numbers 1,2,4,8, and 10. If I’m split down the middle, does that make me an Independent party?

In Salon’s Trump’s America VS. Hillary’s America: The Most Shocking Contrasts Between the Democratic and Republican Debates (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/trumps_america_vs_hillarys_america_the_most_shocking_contrasts_between_the_democratic_republican_debates/), the article ends with these two scenarios:

Republican America is a dystopian hellscape in which evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers and Planned Parenthood sociopaths are committing mayhem on children and selling the body parts. And that’s just for starters.

Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality, solve the looming crisis of climate change and manage global crises without plunging the nation into more wars. They also must hold off that anarchistic opposition which sees the world as a dystopian hellscape and that may be the greatest challenge of all.

A little over a year from now voters are going to decide which country they want to live in. Let’s hope they choose wisely. The rest of us are going to have to live in it too.

Wait. Why does Republican America have to be a dystopian hell while Democratic America is a very powerful nation? Right off the bat, I know what political viewpoint this writer is. This writer is Democratic. But they’re wrong about Republican America. Planned Parenthood sociopaths committing mayhem on children and selling body parts can’t be what Republicans are for especially since #2 in EnkiVillage’s article had Republicans opposing abortions. Planned Parenthood is all for abortions. So where did Democratics who favor abortions try to make it seem like Republicans support something they don’t?

Marie Claire’s There’s a Long History of Republicans Supporting Planned Parenthood — Why Is No One Talking About It? (http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a16149/planned-parenthood-republicans/) does a quick rundown of Republicans supporting Planned Parenthood. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started by a Republican, back in the days when Republicans did support Planned Parenthood. Note that abortions weren’t legal back in those days and Planned Parenthood was mainly for family planning, for contraception uses and for education. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. In 1976, Republican’s adopted the anti-abortion stance and since the 1980’s, overwhelmingly Republicans have been trying to shut down federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon enacted the Title X Family Planning Program as part of the Public Health Services Act.The purpose of the bill was never to use federal funding for abortions. It was meant to be used for family planning and preventive care as well as the provision of contraception, education, and counseling to families with low income who typically couldn’t afford these services.

According to OPA, Title X operates by granting funds to a network of community-based clinics that provide contraceptive services, related counseling, and other preventive health services. Typical grantees include State and local health departments, tribal organizations, hospitals, university health centers, independent clinics, community health centers, faith-based organizations, and various public and private nonprofit entities.

The services provided by Title X grantees include family planning and provision of contraception, education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), education about preventing STDs and HIV and counseling for affected patients, referrals to other health care resources, pregnancy diagnosis, and pregnancy counseling.

By preventing unintended pregnancies, Title X reduces the number of abortions in the United States.[7] Since its inception, Title X has not provided funds for programs that use abortion as a family planning method.[3][8][9]

Title X grantees and sub-recipients must be in full compliance with Section 1008 of the Title X statute and 42 CFR 59.5(a)(5), which prohibit abortion as a method of family planning. Grantees and sub-recipients must have written policies that clearly indicate that none of the funds will be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Additional guidance on this topic can be found in the July 3, 2000, Federal Register Notice entitled Provision of Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41281, and the final rule entitled Standards of Compliance for Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41270.

Planned Parenthood started out as such an organization, providing family services to people of low income or no income. That was an admirable thing, to provide care, education, counseling, and contraception to people who couldn’t otherwise afford it. But with the legalization of abortion in 1973, Planned Parenthood took a turn that Republicans weren’t comfortable with. Instead, it became the nation’s biggest provider of abortions. Federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives isn’t allowed, by law, to be used for abortions. Many people say that federal funding for Planned Parenthood allows nonfederal money to be used for abortions and Republicans understand this, which is why they’re trying to shut federal funding for Planned Parenthood down.

On February 2, 2016, the US House failed to override President Obama’s veto of H.R.3762 which would have prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Medicaid funds for one year. (https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h53-114.2016)

So who is allowing Planned Parenthood sociopaths to commit mayhem on children and sell the body parts now? Democrats.

Salon’s quote of, “evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers” is absurd. Trump has repeatedly and often savagely stated his views on foreigners. He wants to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep illegals out. Not only that, but Trump pretty much detests all other nationalities and races that doesn’t equal white. While that’s a bit extreme, republicans have had a long stance on people being able to own guns to defend themselves while Democrats are in favor of taking away our guns through gun control.

Al Hoffman, a top GOP donor and “conservative Republican” was quoted in Huffington Post saying, “I believe the Republican Party faces irrelevancy if we as a party don’t gain a little rational nexus as far as gun control is concerned. I personally believe President Obama is right on the issue of gun control…We really ought to follow what the American public wants and there’s a clear consensus that they’re in favor of stricter gun control,” he said.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/al-hoffman-republican_n_3094804.html)

The American public wants stricter gun laws, laws that would prevent people from obtaining a weapon legally to protect themselves. Sure, it’s tragic with all the mass shootings and with corrupt cops killing people, but America’s solution is to take guns away from people? That makes a lot of sense, because everyone knows that bad people will always find ways to get guns. Let’s just totally ignore the fact that some shootings are from people allowed to carry guns like cops. Remind me when unarmed men aren’t shot to death by police brutality.

I was in a small town in Georgia called Lincolnton for a few years back in 2008. I was talking to local law enforcement about the rate of murders that occurred there. There was none. There were no murders. They told me that every person in that town owned a gun. Of course they still had their share of drugs and drug dealers and crazy people, but no one tried to kill anyone and there were no break-ins into someone’s house because everyone knew that they all owned guns.

When it’s public knowledge that everyone has a weapon and can use that weapon, how many people will risk their lives to get killed? The reason why people die from things like mass shootings is because there isn’t enough guns. If people can shoot back and defend themselves against some armed person who starts shooting, less people will have to die because they can all defend themselves.

Obviously, it worked for that small town. Would it work on a bigger town? A city? I don’t know, but I do know that taking away someone’s second amendment and taking away their ability to protect themselves is a big mistake. It’s the first in breaking down the men and women in this country’s reliance on themselves and forcing them to be totally dependent on the federal government for protection.

On The Issue’s Republican Party on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_gun_control.htm) states the Republican Party Platform on the topics of Gun Control:

Right to obtain and store ammunition without registration

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Open more public land to hunting

Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing

We believe the 2nd Amendment and all the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense. We applaud those seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding gun owners & national gun registration as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

Will protect right to bear arms

We defend the constitutional right to bear arms. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000

On The Issue’s Democratic Party On Gun Control Party Platform states (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm):

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004

Strengthen gun control to reduce violence

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime. Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

Gun control has no effect on murder rates. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia has had bans on guns. The numbers before and after aren’t of any significance, save Australia who saw a small spike in murders after the ban, and then numbers returned to normal. (http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/)

Like I said, people who want guns to hurt others will always find a way to get them.

I recently learned that Democrats want to give tax cuts to the middle class. While that’s admirable, there’s a misconception that the Republicans want to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That’s not true. Republicans want a flat rate tax. Compared to the Democratic tax cuts, that means that the wealthy will no longer be taxed as heavily because the tax rate will be a flat rate for all. Now, most people mistaken that as the Republicans wanting to increase the wealth of the wealthy. No. Republicans want to make it fair. The wealthy make money just like everyone else. It’s unfair to tax them more because they make more money.

In America, there’s this envy in which people who are capable of earning a higher income shouldn’t be allowed so much money. People who don’t make enough money should just be given free money. But the distribution of wealth in America goes like this: taxes from the rich gives excess money to pay for federal programs to support those in need. A flat tax rate would indeed cut back taxes on the rich, but it will not increase taxes on the middle class since the tax rate will be a flat rate. Ballotpedia does a better job at explaining current Presidential candidates and their stance on taxes. Note that this is income tax.

(https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_taxes)

Hillary Clinton

According to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “Clinton’s tax plan would raise taxes on the 1 percent by an average of $78,000 per person while keeping taxes for the rest of Americans largely the same.” In addition, her “plan would generate $1 trillion in additional revenue for the government over the first decade and an additional $2 trillion over the next 20 years. Yet three-quarters of those additional funds will come from the top 1 percent of earners. … The top 1 percent — those who earn more than $732,000 a year — would see their taxes increase by an average of $78,284 in 2017… The top 0.1 percent, or those with incomes of over $3.8 million, would see their taxes increase by an average of $519,741. The bottom 20 percent of earners, or those making $23,000 or less, would see their taxes go up by $4 a year in 2017. The middle quintile, or those making $80,000 to $142,000, would see their taxes go up by $44 a year. And the top 20 percent, who make $209,000 or more, would see an average tax hike of $4,527.”[2]

Bernie Sanders

Sanders released a tax proposal as part of an effort to explain how he would pay for his Medicare-for-all, single-payer healthcare plan. Sanders said the plan would cost $1.38 trillion per year—a figure that has been criticized as low[7][8]— and that it would be paid for with a 6.2 percent income-based healthcare premium paid by employers, which is expected to raise $630 billion per year. Sanders’ proposal also called for a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, which is expected to raise $210 billion a year. The plan also would raise income tax rates on households making $250,000 and above. Under Sanders’ plan, rates would rise to 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000; 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million; and 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. The current highest income tax rate is 39.6 percent. Sanders would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000, which would raise $92 billion per year. Limits on deductions for households making over $250,000 would raise $15 billion per year, and increases to the estate tax—focused specifically on people making more than $250,000 a year or inheriting estates larger than $3.5 million—would yield $21 billion a year. Sanders also said that $310 billion a year would be raised by eliminating several tax breaks that subsidize healthcare, which would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer healthcare system. Currently, health insurance benefits are exempt from both income and payroll taxes, and some economists believe that, eventually, employer spending on health would translate into higher wages and salaries. Minus what would be needed to pay the 6.2 percent tax, Sanders believes that there would be $310 billion a year in new income and payroll taxes, on average over the next 10 years.[9][10][11][12]<

Ted Cruz

On October 28, 2015, Ted Cruz unveiled his tax plan. He proposed a 10 percent flat tax on all individual income from wages. He also proposed elimination of the payroll tax and the corporate income tax, to be replaced by a 16 percent Business flat tax. Cruz said that social security and medicare will remain fully funded, despite elimination of the payroll tax, which funds those programs. Cruz’s plan also included a Universal Savings Account, which would allow every American to save up to $25,000 annually on a tax-deferred basis for any purpose. Cruz also promised no estate tax, alternative minimum tax or ObamaCare taxes, and would do away with taxes on profits earned abroad.[17] An analysis by the Tax Foundation, a group that supports lower tax rates, said the senator’s reforms would “represent a significant shift from the current tax code.” The group estimated Cruz’s proposals would increase the deficit by as much as $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years, but that figure drops to a $768 billion deficit when including possible economic growth.[18] The libertarian Cato Institute said Cruz’s corporate business activity tax is essentially a value-added tax. The proposal is similar to a sales tax, since it’s assumed that businesses will pass the cost of paying it onto consumers. “He says he wants a ‘business flat tax,’ but what he’s really proposing is a value-added tax,” Cato said.[19][20]

John Kasich

Kasich unveiled “The Kasich Action Plan” on October 15, 2015. The proposal called for reducing the number of tax brackets to three from seven; lowering the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent; and capping the long-term capital gains tax rate at 15 percent, helping those in the highest income tax bracket. Kasich’s plan also included a drop in the top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. The proposal would also eliminate the estate tax; double the research and development tax credit for small businesses; and increase by 10 percent the earned income tax credit, which designed to help lower-income taxpayers. Kaisch said he would also balance the budget in eight years by freezing most spending except for the military.[24][25]

In the run up to the launch of his campaign to run for president on July 21, 2015, Kasich had said that he has been exploring a flat tax. [26][27]

Marco Rubio

Rubio introduced his tax overhaul plan on March 4, 2015 as a Senate bill. It was cosponsored with U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). The proposal would reduce the number of brackets from seven to three: 15%, 25%, and 35% and eliminate all exemptions and deductions, except for a charitable contribution deduction and a reformed home mortgage interest deduction. Instead, taxpayers would receive a personal tax credit that phases out for higher-income Americans. The plan would cuts corporate tax rates for all businesses to no higher than 25%, and end federal taxation of business investment by allowing for immediate expensing. Rubio also proposed shifting to a territorial tax system, ending the double-taxation of profits earned abroad for both businesses and individuals. The plan would also eliminate the double-taxation on saving and investment income and would provide a transition period during which the nation would move to a 0% tax rate on dividends and capital gains. Rubio would also eliminate the estate tax. The plan would provide a new child tax credit of up to $2,500, which phases out for wealthier Americans and would offer a limited 25% non-refundable tax credit to any business that offers between four and twelve weeks of paid leave to workers with qualifying family or medical issues, such as, a newborn child in need of care, an elderly parent with declining health, a personal health crisis, or a spouse’s deployment.[33][34][35]

Donald Trump

Trump unveiled his tax policy on September 28, 2015. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s platform would remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000, reduce the highest individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and cut corporate taxes to no higher than 15 percent.[39]During September 2015, the Center for Tax Justice claimed Trump’s tax plan would reduce tax revenues by $9 trillion over 10 years. the Tax Foundation similarly estimated his plan would cost $10 trillion over the same time period. Trump’s campaign maintained that the plan was designed to be “revenue neutral.”[40]

Wait. Donald Trump wants to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25k and couples earning less than $50k per year? Huh? How come no one is talking about this? Everyone is talking about lowering income taxes for the middle class. Everyone is talking about how the rich will get richer due to Republican tax cuts for the rich, but how come no one is talking about how Donald Trump wants to remove the income tax for everyone earning less than $25k per year as an individual or $50k per year as a couple?

Donald Trump proposes to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000 per year.

There. I said it. And I just learned about it.

So what if his highest tax bracket goes from the current 39.6% to 25% for taxing income on the wealthy? Trump is not taxing anyone within those parameters of his tax plan which brings the current record of federal taxes for $25k to have the first $20k taxed at 10% and the remaining $5k taxed at 20% (https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/What-is-My-Tax-Bracket-/INF26080.html). For a couple, that would be 10% of taxes on $20k and the remaining $30k taxed at 20%.

But wait! The wealthy gets a 14.6% decrease in income taxes?

Considering that the income taxes of the wealthy is used for the federal budget to have money to pay for things, that’s bad, right? Well, in a society of envy and greed where no taxes for the poor and less taxes for the rich means that there’s less money to spend on things like social programs, it’s a complete and utter abomination (for a lack of a better word) to pretty much force the wealthy to take their money and spend it however the government wants it, which is distributing it to the poor, which will never be enough free money for the middle class or the poor to catch up to the wealthy.

I find it funny now that there are self righteous people who complain about how their taxes goes to pay for things like federal prisons so they are entitled to determine what prisoners can and cannot do or what prisoners can and cannot have on commissary (prisoners pay for food on commissary), or how they want everyone on food stamps to be able to only buy rice and potatoes when the rich doesn’t say anything, who also pays more taxes so the middle class can complain and whine. Imagine if the wealthy class said, “we want to limit what kind of food the middle class and the poor can eat, what kind of food is served in public schools, and how the middle class and the poor should spend their tax returns because our money pays for them and the services they use.” At least the wealthy has enough class to not dictate how someone else should live off the money that they pay in taxes to the federal government.

There is never enough of this envy that the middle class feels they should punish the rich and also punish the poor for. They believe they’re the victims of all this unfair taxation done to unfairly punish them. This pity stance is what most people have believed about the middle class and will go to lengths to help the middle class out of their misery, which is exactly what the middle class wants. We’ve been tricked that the middle class is so poor, we should all help the middle class become rich by ignoring the actual poor people and homeless people and people in need in our country. Thankfully, most middle class people (I hope most) are not playing victims and are not trying to dictate what the federal government does with their tax money and not trying to enforce this perversion of how other people should live who receive federal funding of some sort or any sort.

Investopedia’s Parties For Taxes: Republicans VS. Democrats (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/us-parties-republican-democrat-taxes.asp) states:<

Political Ideology: Republican
“We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions,” the Republicans state their case plainly on the Republican National Convention web site. That is, Republicans believe government should spend money only to enforce contracts, maintain basic infrastructure and national security, and protect citizens against criminals.

The literature of the House Republican Conference goes on to illuminate the role of the government and how tax policies affect individuals: “The money the government spends does not belong to the government; it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. Republicans believe Americans deserve to keep more of their own money to save and invest for the future, and low tax policies help drive a strong and healthy economy.”

Tax relief is the Republican route to growing the economy. A Republican government would reduce taxes for businesses to allow businesses to grow and thus hire more employees. Republicans also seek to limit income taxes for individuals so that people can hold on to more disposable income, which they can then spend, save or invest.

Political Ideology: Democrat
The tax policy for the Democratic Party calls for raising certain taxes to provide money for government spending, which in turn generates business. The party platform asserts that government spending provides “good jobs and will help the economy today.”

Many Democrats are adherents to Keynesian economics, or aggregate demand, which holds that when the government funds programs, those programs pump new money into the economy. Keynesians believe that prices tend to stay relatively stable and therefore any kind of spending, whether by consumers or the government, will grow the economy. (Check out Giants Of Finance: John Maynard Keynes, to learn more about Keynes’ theories.)

Like the Republicans, Democrats believe the government should subsidize vital services that keep cities, states and the country running: infrastructure such as road and bridge maintenance and repairs for schools. Democrats also call for tax cuts for the middle class. But who benefits most under each platform? The conventional wisdom is that corporations and the wealthy will benefit more with a Republican tax policy while small businesses and middle-class households will benefit from a Democratic tax policy.

Conventional wisdom isn’t actually conventional in this sense. While many people side with Democrats to gather benefits aimed at small businesses and the middle class, the Republican party’s stance isn’t to benefit corporations and the wealthy. It’s to make everyone responsible for their own success, which many people don’t like and will not like because they’re so used to being told they’re special enough that the government will support them. This mentality doesn’t apply to normal people who actually are responsible adults, who strive for success, who can budget and invest their money, but this mentality applies to a group consciousness that we really don’t have to work hard for anything because the federal government will help us.

There are people on welfare who needs the support of that particular program. Then there are other people on welfare who abuse the program and is simply on because it’s free money. While government assistance is indeed a good thing, sometimes, it doesn’t get to the people who actually need the programs because of the people who abuse the programs. I’m not for abolishing federal programs and aid, but I am for people being responsible and taking responsibility for themselves.

Education should be key. People need to be educated.

Salon’s article states, “Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality…

Inequality isn’t what people want. The middle class wants to be the rich class, ridiculing and governing the poor. The lbgt movement wants special rights which allows them to infringe upon the rights of others with no backlash. Democrats want common core math. I think that really says it all for me. Common core math is the most insidious confusion ever injected into America. Sure, it makes sense…if laws and rules and theories didn’t apply and you did math however you wanted which isn’t called math anymore. It’s now simply called, making things up.

Sure, Donald Trump is unfiltered and racist and not the brightest crayon in the Crayola box, but he can still color. Whatever color he is, he lays it on thick. And how many of us aren’t racist or prejudice against someone or something or many things or many people? I for one, am racist against cannibals. I don’t know if they only eat certain people or if they’re going to try and eat me so if I meet one, I am running far, far away if that’s an option. If not, I am not becoming food so I might have to kill them before they kill me. It’s logical reasoning although extreme and hopefully unrealistic. The point is, we don’t like everything and everyone. And I do not know of one person that doesn’t judge anyone based on how they look. Not a single person. What we see first is the outside. And most of us sum up people we meet immediately by how they look before we start to judge them on how they carry themselves and how their character is. While most of us have the ability to not voice our thoughts out loud, Donald Trump doesn’t have that filter so he voices his thoughts out loud. Like, really loud.

So while Trump is an outwardly jerk of what kind of jerks we really are, I commend him in being honest to himself at whatever moment he decides to be himself. There’s a freedom and liberty in being yourself, using Trump as an example, in which we should never be ourselves. Whether in public or in private, we should never really be ourselves.

I’m starting to understand this great love for Donald Trump that everyone has which isn’t easily summed up as insanity. Trump has won 12 states so far: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

I can easily see Trump becoming the next president. And if that’s so, we might get walls put up soon, but we’ll all have our guns and keep whatever wages we make as long as it’s under $25k an individual or $50k per couple. You win some, you lose some. You can’t win it all, but Trump is certainly winning.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 8, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,