Ask Me Help Desk - Trump Demands Money From Republicans

Trump Demands Money From Republicans

In a typically bizarre statement from Trump, he has told Republicans NOT to donate money to the Republican Party. Instead, send that money to Trump !!

Since Trump is not subject to PAC rules, he will use that money to pay off his debts, pay his lawyers as he faces criminal charges in several states, and even pay himself and his family salaries if he wants to (he probably will want to). Just thought the Trumpists here should be aware of this.

In other news, while landmark legislation is being passed that will bring millions out of poverty, allow more millions to afford health insurance, help local municipalities survive, and kick start the economy, Republicans have voted 100% AGAINST it.

They are busy discussing Mr. Potato Head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

In other news, while landmark legislation is being passed that will bring millions out of poverty, allow more millions to afford health insurance, help local municipalities survive, and kick start the economy, Republicans have voted 100% AGAINST it.

They are busy discussing Mr. Potato Head.

The Republicans know they won't benefit from it, they will just inherit the debt. The millions can't afford health insurance because the demonrats did a deal that made health insurance too expensive. The dizzens of this board tell us that there is nothing wrong with the economy, and I ask you how can a $1400 handout bring millions out of poverty for more than a few days. Spare the rhetoric and call it what it is, B/S

Trump has a rent free dwelling in your head. The truth is that there is a much less division between Trump and the GOP than there is between traditional liberal Democrats and the becoming dominant "progressive " socialist wing of the Dems .
Most of the GOP campaigns for 2022 have been invoking the name of Trump and presumably supporting Trumpism . Trump does have a PAC called 'Save America PAC ' so saying he is not subject to PAC rules is incorrect .

His statement....."No more money for RINOS," ... "They do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base--they will never lead us to Greatness. Send your donation to Save America PAC at DonaldJTrump.com. We will bring it all back stronger than ever before!"

It is correct to say that he is urging his supporters to NOT fund the traditional GOP PACs .

"I fully support the Republican Party and important GOP Committees, but I do not support RINOs and fools, and it is not their right to use my likeness or image to raise funds," "So much money is being raised and completely wasted by people that do not have the GOP's best interests in mind."

What he doesn't want is Trump supporter $$ going to NeverTrumpers like Lisa Murkowski .What the GOP wants is Trump's influence without Trumps perceived baggage . They will not be able to have it both ways .

Quote:

he has told Republicans NOT to donate money to the Republican Party. Instead, send that money to Trump !!

That is not true. Even CNBC knows that.

Quote:

“We look forward to working with President Trump to retake our Congressional majorities and deliver results for the American people,” said the joint statement from Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Emmer.
“The RNC, NRSC and NRCC are grateful for President Trump’s support, both past and future,” the statement said. “Through his powerful agenda, we were able to break fundraising records and elect Republicans up and down the ballot.”
Trump, who commands overwhelming support among GOP voters even after losing his reelection bid, is discouraging Republicans from sending money to “people that do not have the GOP’s best interests in mind.”
Those people, according to Trump, comprise a yet-unspecified group of “fools” and “RINOs” — a derogatory term that stands for “Republicans in name only.”
Trump is instead directing people toward his own political action committee, Save America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Trump has a rent free dwelling in your head. ......and the becoming dominant "progressive " socialist wing of the Dems

You have a rent-free dwelling in your head for the Democrats being socialists. When asked to lay out your ideas of socialist Democratic programs, you failed miserably. MY Trump rent free dwelling is a GOOD thing. YOUR rent free dwelling is FALSE.

What could be more socialist than a $2 Billion spend on social welfare? Of course the Demonrats are socialist; at the very least buying votes..I don't know whether that space in your head is rented out, you live in a low rent district

yes and the Child Credit checks will be sent out monthly to reinforce that sense of dependency on the government . The Dems want to make it permanent ..... then will come the debate about universal basic income . The gimmee comes 1st . Then they hit you with how it gets paid for .

Quote:

Then they hit you with how it gets paid for .

There is no conceivable level of taxation to raise that kind of revenue.

yup but they think taxing the rich will foot the bill .

There is another agenda at work. The lib dems who have thought about it (a distinct minority) know it can't be done, so they are after something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is no conceivable level of taxation to raise that kind of revenue.

Oh there is but you wouldn't like it, refer Sweden

This scene in the Netflix show 'Money Heist ' explains what the Dems have done in a decade of liquidity injections .

Money Heist: The Professor gets the inspector to switch sides (ENGLISH) - YouTube

Quote:

Oh there is but you wouldn't like it, refer Sweden

My goodness. You hit the nail on the head with that one. "Sweden is a nation with extraordinary high tax rates. The average worker not only pays 30 percent of her or his income in visible taxes, but, additionally, close to 30 percent in hidden taxes. The defenders of the punishing tax burden argue that it is needed to maintain Sweden's generous welfare system."

In addition, the sales tax there is very high. It's what happens when freedom is lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

it is needed to maintain Sweden's generous welfare system." It's what happens when freedom is lost.

It's what happens when societies adhere to the principles of Judeo-Christianity.

Quote:

It's what happens when societies adhere to the principles of Judeo-Christianity.

So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor? Pretty sure I know the answer to that one. And given your checkered history of answering questions, I doubt an answer will be forthcoming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor? Pretty sure I know the answer to that one.

Please read Luke 6:37.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Then why are you judging me? And why are you engaging in cherry-picking texts? (I don't think you are, but that's how you always reply when I point to a scripture.)

Please read Matthew 7:5

go back to your Bible class and leave the quotes there, that way we can move from a religious discussion to a political one

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So you're giving sixty percent of your income to help the poor?

You avoided my comment. As usual, you see helping the poor as a matter of taxation - and a bad use of it.

Paul wrote:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

Psalm 72:
Endow the king with your justice, O God, For he will deliver the needy who cry out.

Jesus Said:
Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

and your point is?

He is all in favor of forcing other people to give to the poor.

No, wrong attitude, he is in favour of helping out those less fortunate, afterall isn't the government there for the common good?

Has nothing to do with an "attitude". I'm talking about what the guy is advocating for. He is all for getting the government to take even more money from others to support his charitable inclinations. You will never see him issue a call to raise HIS taxes.

Saying the government is here for the "common good" is a far cry from saying we should take money from some people to give to others, and especially when those others are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. The "common good" in America was historically defined as projects such as roads and schools which benefit everyone. That is not the same at all as taking money from one person to give to another. And even worse, to do what we are doing now which is to borrow money to give to another.

If he is really in favor of helping out the less fortunate, then I feel certain he has significant resources of his own to use to do so. It's what my wife and I do. I imagine it's what you do, it is certainly what many others do, and it's what he could do if he chose to. Charity is not when A and B force C to take care of D.

nope . The Constitution was established to protect individual rights primarily .Government has to balance those rights and the common good . But the individual rights are precedent

And it's hard to imagine a more fundamental individual right than the right to one's own property.

If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.

Quote:

If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.

That's fine if that's what you choose, but when you attempt by force of law to compel others to do likewise, then you are wrong.

To be clear, I'm all for helping others. It's one reason why I preach the Gospel, for when a person accepts Christ, then that person will be led to love his neighbor as himself. But I will not be a part of forcing others to do. The former is charity. The latter is tyranny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's fine if that's what you choose, but when you attempt by force of law to compel others to do likewise, then you are wrong.

We, the people, in this country together make laws. The majority rules. Sometimes I am not happy with a law, but it's a law so I roll with it and do my best to obey and cooperate in order to obey that law. I know that someday I and/or my loved ones/my friends/my neighbors may very likely benefit because of that law.

Quote:

The majority rules.

The Constitution rules. But even if you are right, are you saying that we should just roll over and accept whatever the majority mandates? The majority elected Trump. Did you just "roll with it" on that occasion? Hint: We both know the answer to that one.

Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip? There is no "me" in your governmnt. 8D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The Constitution rules. But even if you are right, are you saying that we should just roll over and accept whatever the majority mandates? The majority elected Trump. Did you just "roll with it" on that occasion? Hint: We both know the answer to that one.

Did you see me leading a revolution to have him assassinated? No. Did I go along with decisions he and the Republican Party made? Yes. P.S. Government consists of the majority.

Quote:

Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip?

I'n tping this without one finger on my candle while lying sideways in bed in a dark boardroom.

Interesting how he employs the Bible when it's convenient.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan(C) has so filled your heart(D) that you have lied to the Holy Spirit(E) and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?(F) 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?

Notice that Peter asserts that Ananias' land belonged to him and it was at his disposal. It was not his handling of his money that was the problem; it was his lying about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Interesting how he employs the Bible when it's convenient.

If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.

This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor. Your way puts roadblocks in the way of the word of God.

Quote:

If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.

Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take? At any rate, your argument falls rather flat. The injunction to obey the government is plainly limited. For instance, the Romans were against the Christian faith, made it illegal, and persecuted its followers, but Christians did not obey the government in that regard. But even at that, we're not talking about obeying government; we're talking about what government policy should be. And you have not posted a single scripture to the effect that government should take money from one citizen to give to another. Your assertion that, "This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor," is ridiculous. You did not post a single scripture that referred to the government using tax money to help the poor. Not one. Now there actually is some Bible support for that, but you seem not to know it. I will be happy to provide if you would like.

BTW, Jesus is likely not speaking of the materially poor. If He was, then one could argue that our goal should be to have MORE poor people, and not fewer. His reference was more likely to the spiritually poor, which is to say to those who realize their own personal poverty in matters concerning God, and thus their great need for Jesus.

Quote:

Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take?

Because they think you are dumb, recalcitrant, stuck in the past, and Trump's attitudes certainly typified that. You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or Republictant

The dufus is a capitalist in need of money to pay his lawyers so of course he needs a super pac. Who gives a flying fig what the Swedes do?

Well Tal you may be surprised to learn the Swedes do, they do surprisingly well for a small country. As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well Tal you may be surprised to learn the Swedes do, they do surprisingly well for a small country.

With their defense budget how could they not do well?

Quote:

As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him

Watch their heads explode...especially the ones shoulder deep up his arse. I know I need a hobby, but it's fascinating watching a major party floundering over itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

. I know I need a hobby, but it's fascinating watching a major party floundering over itself.

What you get if you don't have a viable opposition is bad government

Repubs have been reduced to talking about old children's books and toys and saying NO to liberals. Dems invited them to the party but the dufus and his loony cabal won't allow it.

Quote:

You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or Republictant

You know nothing about America. It is well established that Americans move up and down the rungs of the income ladder frequently in both directions. The poor have certainly not lost the ability to vote, and the rich do not rule the country. If they did, then they would not be paying more than 85% of income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes.

As to using taxation to "redistribute" income, that would be easy to solve. All of the liberal dems who claim to believe in that could start tomorrow. They could downsize their houses and give the money away. They could give away one car and make the remaining car do double duty. They could cash in a 401K and give the money away. They don't do that because they really don't believe in it. For that matter Clete, you could start giving away a significant portion of your retirement income. It might mean having to live more frugally, but you could do it. You don't because you see the folly in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, it's always someone else's income that needs to be redistributed.