Commander Thrawn

Who cares about PR from people who hate them? People always team up to attack those that are most threatening to their own success. Its happened for over a decade in CN, and its the same story here.

I like how you cant distinguish between different people.

Yep, that's why they are so offended by competence and want to set up arbitrary rules for their own benefit.

I like how you guys act like playing to win is a bad thing.

As usual anything NPO does makes certain people angry. But this will be fun.

I've considered trying it. But I really think I should just go for chicken/fish and veggies more often.

I hope the government shutdown continues forever.

Then surely you can find the proposal, budget, etc. that has a 30 foot wall. Instead of what has been proposed which is using natural barriers in addition to existing fences/walls/etc. to secure the border. Well if you really think it will help you to come around. https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration Yes they are, people who recieve social security get regular checks and use that money for living expenses. Entitlements are not taxpayer money being dumped into the economy as a result of a crisis. No, I said that revenues were the highest they have ever been. Which is a fact. Your inability to comprehend my argument doesn't make me wrong. It says that revenues increased $1.088 trillion. Its exactly what you quoted. "Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart" I never said that tax cuts will reduce the debt, as you can read for yourself if you have the ability. I said that it is wrong to argue "that tax reform increased the deficit and debt to crisis levels." There are two reasons for this. 1. the deficit and debt are not at crisis levels. 2. the driver of the debt is spending and spending growth, not a loss of revenue, we were in a deficit position before tax reform, and revenues increased this year, but spending increased faster. Ummm...? I already told you I'm a CPA. What are your credentials? Its decreasing revenues, but as I already said there's the caveat that over time revenues will be higher because of the additional growth. So? I didn't argue that. As you helpfully quoted I said that immigrants contribute a lot of crime. Which is a fact. You haven't addressed a single one of my points. You clearly can't read and so you can only make personal attacks because of your own sloppiness.

The truth is trolling now? Calling someone a troll is the lowest form of trolling. Sure it will. Stimulus means that you are taking some short run government action to make up for a demand gap due to a drop in private sector economic activity. Like deficit spending. Entitlements are the normal ongoing income of people, if you wanted to make social security or medicare stimulative you would need to create an abrupt temporary increase in benefits. So no you need to learn what you are talking about. Your argument is stupid because it takes one year in isolation rather than the long term trend. I would much rather give up a small amount of money now and have a significantly better economy and higher revenues for future years. We still would have had a deficit under the old system even if we assume that there was no change to growth, so I don't see how you can say we could have bought a wall then without any problem. I didn't argue that the tax cuts would reduce the debt. I said the wall and immigration reform would be revenue generating and I said that the deficit and debt are not driven by tax cuts but instead by low growth, and entitlements and that neither party has done anything about it. You are the one who has this pointless and irrelevant fixation on debt. But I do know if we want to reduce the deficit and eventually the debt then we need much higher growth than we have seen for the past two years. If we can have 3% real GDP growth and reduce the growth of the government budget to 3% or less we would eventually balance simply through inflation. Well I am a CPA, so I think I know accounting better than you. There are two ways to balance a budget, increase revenues or decrease expenses. The government increased revenues this year, but it increased expenses more from a baseline that was already in deficit. What is that "source" supposed to be arguing against? It doesn't address any of my points. Here's a tip, if you are going to call people names, at least be capable of arguing against actual arguments. Your own sources disprove you and don't support your arguments or contradict mine. Well, when your own sources disprove your assertions and you respond to 101 different strawmen with personal attacks and no substance, that seems pretty clear.

So Like I said, no one advocated a 30 ft concrete wall along the entire border. Thanks for confirming it. Yes, thanks again for proving my point. I never said the reduction in revenue wasn't due to the recession. I also didn't attempt to make this a pointless Obama vs. Trump or republicans vs. democrat debate. I literally said that neither party has done anything about deficit reduction. But the border wall will likely save money if anything and will not be a major blip in comparison to the actual drivers of our growth in government spending. Entitlements are not stimulus spending. So you should really learn what you are talking about. Revenues are the highest they have ever been this year. Its not a red herring at all. Capital investment occurs in the areas where the expected return on investment is highest, with the US global tax system and the highest statutory rate in the industrialized world the US was noncompetitive and this shifted investment overseas and prevented the repatriation of billions of dollars, a lack of investment means that we end up with lower growth and lower employment. Both of those reduce revenues and increase costs as people rely more on government programs and pay less in taxes. If the tax cuts increase growth over the prior tax system then of course the tax cuts will increase revenue over time. You are going to have to be more specific about "the end of the republic" But if you look at the CBO estimates they said https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf that over a 10 year period the tax cuts increase economic growth by a cumulative .7% (which is basically no change at all). And that revenues increase by $1.088 Trillion due to economic factors and revenues decrease by $1.690 trillion over that period on the basis of legislative changes. So 2/3 of the tax cuts are made up for by growth even assuming that that growth benefit is negligible. If the impact of the tax cuts were to spur growth by 1% per year and compound on itself, or even a half a percent per year the revenue would increase even more. As with any sort of budget modeling it all comes down to assumptions. We have already seen a quick uptick in growth in the past couple of years and I think that we are going to see continued boons from an economy running at full employment for a while. I see your only method here is to just claim anything you don't like is a red herring. Ah yes, back to this old narrative. I see you have returned to your fanatical bs. Yep, you are definitely the rational one here.

No one has advocated a 30 foot concrete wall along the entire border. So that's a strawman. It has been a fake news creation since the start. Not really. The biggest contributors to debt growth were reduced revenues, low growth, and the continued expansion of entitlements. Tax revenues are higher this year than they have ever been, and the tax cuts have spurred growth. So wrong again. If we can have a good run of 3+% growth and 2% inflation that will help a lot with reducing the debt burden relative to the nominal economy and revenues. But we'd still need to reduce the growth in government spending to under that 5% on a nominal basis for make gains long term. Illegal immigrants contribute a lot of crime actually. Especially when it comes to criminal gangs and drug and human trafficking. But regardless, you need a secure border first before you can expand and reform immigration. We've been down the amnesty with a promise of reform path before and it left us in this situation decades later. Except that the tax cuts will provide greater revenue long-term especially when you consider the large amount of investment that has already occurred with the changes to the corporate side of the code. The biggest problem we have had for decades is that our tax code was set up to double tax corporations on their US operations and income disproportionately weakening small and medium sized businesses and manufacturers based in the US, this caused the shift of many large supply chains outside of the US. That trend is reversing now and this influx of private investment will lead to higher growth rates in the long run, higher employment levels at higher wages, and higher long run revenues. If you are going to demand we compare revenue lost under the past system then you need to consider the impact of the current system on our well-being. Like which people? If we want politicians to make and real changes we are going to need term limits. So far Trump has upheld most of his campaign promises and done a lot of unpopular (but important) things, so I think your criticism is clearly misguided.

A lot of messy nonsense above. But... Trump's plan(s) over time have included a ton of different options, a wall/fence/physical barrier is just one part of that plan. It is not a standalone issue. For example: The Budget proposes sizable investments in a border wall; border security technology and equipment; funding to hire additional CBP and ICE law enforcement officers; and increased capacity to detain and deport illegal aliens. • The Budget requests over $2.2 billion in high-priority investments in border security technology, infrastructure, and equipment to help CBP prevent, detect, and interdict illegal border crossings. These investments include: o $1.6 billion for new border wall in locations identified by the Border Patrol as necessary to obtain operational control of the border and impede illegal crossings. o $183 million for aircraft and other aviation assets to help identify and track illegal border crossings and support enforcement actions on the ground. o $149 million for critical equipment and facility needs, such as Border Patrol stations, vehicles, and radios. o $182 million for surveillance technology, such as towers, radars, cameras, and sensors, to give the Border Patrol situational awareness in high-risk areas. o $107 million for road maintenance to give Border Patrol access to difficult to reach locations. o $44 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, anticipating that stronger enforcement between the ports may lead to increased contraband flowing through official border crossings. o These funds are all in addition to the 2018 Budget request of $2.6 billion for these activities, as well as an additional $15.56 billion the Administration is seeking in 2018 for border security as a result of the Congressional caps deal. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FY19-Budget-Fact-Sheet_Border-Security.pdf Also, setting aside the fact that generally politicians on both sides of the aisle have done nothing material to seek a balanced budget or attempt to reduce the debt. Securing the border and ensuing immigration reform would probably be revenue positive in the long run because it would allow the US to more adequately prevent crime, deal with drug trafficking etc. and would provide a legal status for many people (and ideally) provide more visas and things for skilled trades and other areas where we have a skill gap. Also, the comment about the tax reform increasing the deficit and debt to crisis levels is wrong. Government revenues are up this year and will be up again next year, its just that spending has increased faster than the rate of revenue growth. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart If you want to balance the budget in the long term you are going to need to reform entitlements anyway.

The lack of self-awareness in your post is striking. "Fanatical idiot supporters" - that would seem to be a good descriptor of the people who have suddenly decided physical barriers don't make it harder to enter into a place, despite the fact that fencing/walls and other physical barriers have been a staple of border protection across the aisle for decades and are routinely used across the world.

There's terms of service for you to read to address that question.

How do you know?

Yes, they are legally required to. We have no guarantee that any of those regulations are being addressed since the site doesn't even disclose it isn't part of the game. Very problematic, especially with the admin of the game agreeing to it. Malware isn't the only risk, no one brought that up. Its more a question of is the data secure? Are people's IPs being logged and tracked? Who knows?

I have a feeling you don't know what the GDPR is if you think it helps your argument. Do we have validation that the results and personal information collected by the site are anonymized or encrypted? Why do you think those sites have little banner ads saying that the site uses or cookies or whatnot? Because they are required to. Yes. Absolutely. Especially for people who aren't super tech savvy and are under the false impression that this is being hosted and covered by the terms of service of the game.

So why expose the process to extra security risks? Also there's no disclaimer in the vote message that it isn't part of the game itself/is a link to an external site, which in and of itself is pretty sketchy.

And to vote multiple times. People shouldn't need a VPN to ensure their security in this sort of stuff.

Wait, you mean the winning side imposes terms on the losing side and not on themselves? Thanks for clarifying that.

They all want censorship of the truth. Clearly.

Ask alexio because he is gov and he is aware of the situation.

I see you missed the punctuation and sarcasm. I didn't say Alexio was leaking to you. Well That's Fun A declaration used to express surprise and disbelief while also conveying contempt and/or indifference at the same time. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Well That's Fun The crux of my comment was in regards to the theory that there was some active plot against you, which it seems there really wasn't. There was just bad intel.

I call it like I see it. The fact that some posters can't even differentiate between different people or IC and OOC isn't my fault. I really don't care if you like me (clearly I am living rent free in your mind).

Totally not mad.