I’m saying you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Ok. Think elite and follower dynamic for a minute.

I get that too,  to me all politicians are corrupt.  Both sides.  Its a by product of human desire.  Everyone wants money. 

Wait wait hol up?  You know i'm being anti democrat here right?  I'm literally trying to say the democrats have it wrong, and you guys are trying to argue with me...democrats lean to socialism which is anti rich people.  They want to rebalance the wealth.  Raise taxes sky high on people who make more money....

I'm telling you, your "facts" about the Dems being anti-rich is incorrect.  That's my main point.

I gave evidence and examples of why that supposition isn't true.

The Democrat Party is NOT anti-rich.  They simply use that false narrative to pit the classes against each other while ignoring the fact that they, themselves, are "the rich."

Bernie Sanders for decades talked about the "Millionaires and Billionaires" need to pay "their fair share", whatever that undefined amount is.  Now that Bernie's net worth is ove $1M, he uses the phrase "Billionaires".  Even he knows the rhetoric is a total lie used to seize power by lying to Democrat voters.

I'm telling you, your "facts" about the Dems being anti-rich is incorrect.  That's my main point.

I gave evidence and examples of why that supposition isn't true.

The Democrat Party is NOT anti-rich.  They simply use that false narrative to pit the classes against each other while ignoring the fact that they, themselves, are "the rich."

Bernie Sanders for decades talked about the "Millionaires and Billionaires" need to pay "their fair share", whatever that undefined amount is.  Now that Bernie's net worth is ove $1M, he uses the phrase "Billionaires".  Even he knows the rhetoric is a total lie used to seize power by lying to Democrat voters.

What I am trying to say is their political slogan and literally posted on their sites is to raise taxes on the rich.  That's about as anti rich as you can get.   Crazy Bernie wanted to raise taxes to like 99% on billionaires.  Luckily republicans have fought them on that and there hasnt been any crazy tax increases on the rich.  If democrats pass a law that says anyone who makes over 1million dollars pays 50% tax how can you argue thats not anti-rich?

If they raise the tax brackets and raise the taxes on those earning more than X amount, if they also earn more than that they have to pay more taxes too.   I am not arguing with you on corruption.  There are corrupt democrats and republicans most politicians are rich.  They are all corrupt.  I am saying democrats tend to want to raise taxes....I know you want to argue with everything I say....

You are so naive.

They tailor the tax code and make it complicated so they and their corporate donors can shelter their money.  The include deductions few of us have the holdings to qualify for.  And because they have tax planners and accountants, they know how to legally keep from paying all those higher taxes.

If personal income taxes go up, so what?  They structure their income so it flows through a foundation or as a corporation, paying less (operating expense) on a low salary while being allowed a corporate spending account,  leased cars, even homes -- all paid by their corporate or foundation money.  That prevents paying income taxes while writing off the expenses to reduce taxes for the organization.  That' just one example.  Earnings from overseas can be parked in off shore banks, avoiding taxes on that progit to the earning entities.  So many shelters, so few taxes paid.

What I am trying to say is their political slogan and literally posted on their sites is to raise taxes on the rich.  That's about as anti rich as you can get.   Crazy Bernie wanted to raise taxes to like 99% on billionaires.  Luckily republicans have fought them on that and there hasnt been any crazy tax increases on the rich.  If democrats pass a law that says anyone who makes over 1million dollars pays 50% tax how can you argue thats not anti-rich?

You still aren't getting it.

I love peanut butter.  But, I just did a poll and found out people are against peanut butter, mostly due to the increase in numbers of people sick and dying from peanut alergies.

So I start a campaign to raise money against the peanut butter industry.  At the same time, I promise the peanut butter and peanut farming industries I'll take care of them through subsidies if elected to office.  They then funnel millions on top of millions of dollars to my campaign and my PACs.  Enough so the whole country knows I'm the guardian against peanut allergies.

After I win election, I then push legislation -- mostly in the form of addendums to other bills that are sure to pass -- that give peanut farmers more money to grow less, and R&D money to peanut butter manufacturers to build plants that don't process peanuts for all the products they already made and sold but in plants that might have peanut residue.  Safer non-peanut products for the allergic, more revenue for the businesses, more money for the farmers, and I reaped the millions in donations -- all at tax payer and consumer expense.

Was I really "anti-peanut butter"?  Or did I just adopt that plank in my platform to get elected?

Same as the "anti-rich" plank in the Dem platform.

Don't believe everything you read on a website.  The Dems have used that line since FDR created welfare programs.

You are so naive.

They tailor the tax code and make it complicated so they and their corporate donors can shelter their money.  The include deductions few of us have the holdings to qualify for.  And because they have tax planners and accountants, they know how to legally keep from paying all those higher taxes.

If personal income taxes go up, so what?  They structure their income so it flows through a foundation or as a corporation, paying less (operating expense) on a low salary while being allowed a corporate spending account,  leased cars, even homes -- all paid by their corporate or foundation money.  That prevents paying income taxes while writing off the expenses to reduce taxes for the organization.  That' just one example.  Earnings from overseas can be parked in off shore banks, avoiding taxes on that progit to the earning entities.  So many shelters, so few taxes paid.

I am not denying this, both republicans and democrats are guilty and many rich people.   Though democrats technically preach they are trying to close them.  Only time will tell what they actually do.

What I am trying to say is their political slogan and literally posted on their sites is to raise taxes on the rich. 

Does it say "monetary rich"?  People can be rich in other ways. Rich in love, rich in pootang, etc...

Just messing with you.

Does it say "monetary rich"?  People can be rich in other ways. Rich in love, rich in pootang, etc...

Just messing with you.

That's rich!   

I am not denying this, both republicans and democrats are guilty and many rich people.   Though democrats technically preach they are trying to close them.  Only time will tell what they actually do.

Democrats have had half a century running cities that continue to elect nothing but Democrats. 

How much time will it take before we "tell" them, enough!??

I don't want New Orleans, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles and Portland to be the model cities for the whole nation.  Do you?

I understand you have no experience beyond your 20+ years, most of which was spent playing video games and surfing porn sites.  But that is no excuse for your ignorance and misguided opinions.  The Internet is a library of knowledge those of us over 40 never grew up with.  You have a head-start on us if you would only try to take advantage of information -- not just propaganda. 

The thing about the information highway is, it's full of accidents, potholes, road hogs and misleading exit ramps.  You never learned the "driving" fundamentals, so now you think you can navigate the advanced roadways.  It's a common problem.  People have access to BMWs and Mustangs, but they would do better practicing in a Corolla first.

I was a photographer in high school.  My first 35mm belonged to the ROTC detachment.  It was a Yashica FX-2, and the only electronics was a light meter with a +/- needle.  You adjusted the f-stop and shutter speed until you lined up the needle in the middle of the + and -.  That meant I had to learn the basics:  depth of field, focusing techniques (no auto-focus), types of film/ASA ratings (long before digital cameras existed), composing a shot, etc.  If I messed up a shot, I didn't have the luxury of taking a bunch of multiple shots of the same picture, then editing it in PhotoShop.  Each shot added up.  Cost of film, cost of professional developing, and so on.  I even built my own basement dark room to have some control over the printing process:  enlarging, cropping, exposure variations, ... 

As it turns out, I actually became a very good photographer.  Those who bought expensive Nikons with automatic everything couldn't seem to take a decent picture to save their lives.  Even though I was never once on the yearbook staff, more of my photos are in those 4 yearbooks than any other photographers'.  I even took the Senior's color photos for the yearbook my senior year.

What does that demonstrate?  Mastering the basics, the fundamentals, of anything is more important than starting out trying to get a handle on the advanced topics.  Same holds true in IT or any profession.  Relying on the technology to do the work for you makes you an operator, not a true professional.

In politics, you need to learn FOR YOURSELF the history of the parties, why they advertise the things they do, why they make the claims they do, and why people tend to believe their claims.  It's basic, but critical to knowing what to believe and what's just pure marketing hype.

Democrats have had half a century running cities that continue to elect nothing but Democrats. 

How much time will it take before we "tell" them, enough!??

I don't want New Orleans, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles and Portland to be the model cities for the whole nation.  Do you?

I understand you have no experience beyond your 20+ years, most of which was spent playing video games and surfing porn sites.  But that is no excuse for your ignorance and misguided opinions.  The Internet is a library of knowledge those of us over 40 never grew up with.  You have a head-start on us if you would only try to take advantage of information -- not just propaganda. 

The thing about the information highway is, it's full of accidents, potholes, road hogs and misleading exit ramps.  You never learned the "driving" fundamentals, so now you think you can navigate the advanced roadways.  It's a common problem.  People have access to BMWs and Mustangs, but they would do better practicing in a Corolla first.

I was a photographer in high school.  My first 35mm belonged to the ROTC detachment.  It was a Yashica FX-2, and the only electronics was a light meter with a +/- needle.  You adjusted the f-stop and shutter speed until you lined up the needle in the middle of the + and -.  That meant I had to learn the basics:  depth of field, focusing techniques (no auto-focus), types of film/ASA ratings (long before digital cameras existed), composing a shot, etc.  If I messed up a shot, I didn't have the luxury of taking a bunch of multiple shots of the same picture, then editing it in PhotoShop.  Each shot added up.  Cost of film, cost of professional developing, and so on.  I even built my own basement dark room to have some control over the printing process:  enlarging, cropping, exposure variations, ... 

As it turns out, I actually became a very good photographer.  Those who bought expensive Nikons with automatic everything couldn't seem to take a decent picture to save their lives.  Even though I was never once on the yearbook staff, more of my photos are in those 4 yearbooks than any other photographers'.  I even took the Senior's color photos for the yearbook my senior year.

What does that demonstrate?  Mastering the basics, the fundamentals, of anything is more important than starting out trying to get a handle on the advanced topics.  Same holds true in IT or any profession.  Relying on the technology to do the work for you makes you an operator, not a true professional.

In politics, you need to learn FOR YOURSELF the history of the parties, why they advertise the things they do, why they make the claims they do, and why people tend to believe their claims.  It's basic, but critical to knowing what to believe and what's just pure marketing hype.

you left out "honolulu"

you left out "honolulu"

Honolulu sucks, but at least we don't have ANTIFA agitators flying here to start riots and burn buildings.  We've had a revolving door justice system here for decades, so that's nothing we didn't already have to deal with.

If I had to list the top 50 places the Dems have ruined, I'd have to include the entire state of Hawaii.  One city doesn't really stand out.

(no auto-focus), types of film/ASA ratings (long before digital cameras existed), composing a shot, etc.

My God!  No auto-focus?  ASA ratings?  What sort of evil treachery is this, has to be racisss to prevent the underprivileged from coping/succeeding.

That would be like a millennial trying to drive a car with a 5 sp manual.  What is this other pedal for?

My God!  No auto-focus?  ASA ratings?  What sort of evil treachery is this, has to be racisss to prevent the underprivileged from coping/succeeding.

That would be like a millennial trying to drive a car with a 5 sp manual.  What is this other pedal for?

All my vehicles are manual transmissions.
for two reasons;
#1 I hate driving a car that thinks it is smarter than I am
given the road conditions.
#2  Kids won't steal it, most can't drive it away.

My God!  No auto-focus?  ASA ratings?  What sort of evil treachery is this, has to be racisss to prevent the underprivileged from coping/succeeding.

That would be like a millennial trying to drive a car with a 5 sp manual.  What is this other pedal for?

Or use a phone without call waiting, voice mail or texting.

The 35mm was a YUUUUGE step up from my pocket 110 Kodak with electronic flip-flash!   

Ah the old days when things were harder and scarce.  Fuck technology making things better and stuff and the young people for embracing it.   

As it turns out, I actually became a very good photographer.  Those who bought expensive Nikons with automatic everything couldn't seem to take a decent picture to save their lives.  Even though I was never once on the yearbook staff, more of my photos are in those 4 yearbooks than any other photographers'.  I even took the Senior's color photos for the yearbook my senior year.

My old neighbor is a photographer and just posted about "everyone's a photographer until they need to use manual mode"

All my vehicles are manual transmissions.
for two reasons;
#1 I hate driving a car that thinks it is smarter than I am
given the road conditions.
#2  Kids won't steal it, most can't drive it away.

My first 2 cars were manual.  Was into racing at the time.  Got out of it and bought automatic.  Manuals a PITA.

Ah the old days when things were harder and scarce.  Fuck technology making things better and stuff and the young people for embracing it.   

Says the genius who can't write a complete sentence EVEN WITH spell check!   

My old neighbor is a photographer and just posted about "everyone's a photographer until they need to use manual mode"

The thing about old timers who learned the basics -- we know when, how and why to use all the settings on a camera.

Most of the people buying Canon EOS kits know only "Automatic" and trust the technology is smarter than them.

It probably is.

I think it is time to have Chris Rock define terms for us, specifically rich vs wealthy. Who wants Biden to win? Pretty much ALL the wealthy, because taxes do not make a difference for them. They do not pay taxes. They keep their money offshore and/or put it in charitable foundations that force policy agendas down our throat like Bill Gates and the World Health Organization. We actually end up paying them with our tax money through corruption and pork barrel spending.