I believe they’re confusing the term victim with the word volunteer.

That’s completely unfair, you couldn’t name one two seven…let’s go with seven other examples of that!

/s

I don’t think I’ve read an interview from anyone who has worked with Trump that doesn’t say he’s one of the dumbest people they’ve ever interacted with. He’s absolutely a con man but he’s also stupid.

All you would end up doing is creating a new business for accountants to devalue someone’s holdings. I assume that you are saying that the wealth will be the value of the asset less any loan against the property, because that’s the only way a first-time home buyer would be taxed nearly nothing. Why wouldn’t the wealthy simply take loans against their assets thereby devaluing them for the purposes of a wealth calculation? The same way that they borrow against their stock portfolio.

But if you tax based on wealth, doesn’t that make home ownership less possible? Property taxes aren’t going away, but now a wealth tax is going to hit property owners? Sales tax is extremely regressive. Income tax is one of the few ways to do progressive taxing.

The first three are great, the fourth idea is insane. Why shouldn’t people pay into their government? If you’re poor, like the first $25k, fine let that be tax free, but why not keep the money in the government coffers and provide single payer healthcare, free college tuition, student debt forgiveness, municipal broadband? Our taxes are not high compared to other western nations.

If it makes you feel better, I did the same thing, but it took your comment for me to realize.

Literally from the article you linked.

But under a more likely scenario, Biden would take advantage of rules that allow unlimited transfers to the candidate’s political party. In that case, Biden’s Democratic Party could spend the money supporting the party’s new candidate.

He can also transfer to a Super PAC.

Edit: In case you don’t believe me again.

Biden could also potentially transfer his funds to an independent super PAC if Harris is not on the ticket.

https://www.vox.com/joe-biden/361991/361991biden-campaign-funds-after-drops-out

Yes, she’s the only candidate, but the funds can also go to the DNC or a Super PAC if Biden directs them there.

until your child gets pregnant…

until your child mistress gets pregnant…

There, I fixed it for you.

Even after 2004, reading this still makes me angry.

It’s sad, because it’s not fair to anyone that that needs to be a concern. But given the risk, I just want Gavin Newsom to replace Biden. I don’t want to take any chances. A milquetoast white guy who is middle of the road. Then president AOC if I had my druthers.

If there are consistent calls for Biden to step down over repeated missteps and glaring concerns, it may not be the people on Capitol Hill that are stubborn.

Their very own messiah was built off of helping the poor

Whoa! I don’t think you’re knowledgeable enough about Supply Side Jesus to make such scurrilous accusations. /s

WTF? I’m not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out.

You’re ignoring that Biden won’t do it, Dems wouldn’t allow him to do it, and the bad faith actors in place aren’t Democrats. So no one, at any level, is going to allow Joe Biden to take any of those steps.

I’ve seen polling that says that Michelle Obama wins by like 20 points, but I’m not stupid enough to believe that polling.

There’s so much “not Trump” feeling in this country, but running a doddering octogenarian against him decreases those people willing to vote for “not Trump”. I’m absolutely voting for the Dem candidate, but I have some very real concerns about it.

You’re really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won’t comply, and also won’t get replaced with lackeys who would.

No, I’m being realistic. It’s a system of checks and balances, but it only works when you have a sufficient number of good faith actors. When you have a sufficient number of bad faith actors, or those willing to go completely over-the-top in their corruption, the system doesn’t work. Immunity, at the end of the day, is a moot point against that level of bad faith malfeasance, a point you choose to seemingly ignore.

And you continue to ignore the supreme court sanctioned method of “cutting the gordian knot” with seal team six.

This isn’t a thing. If Biden ordered the assassination of justices he’d be prosecuted by the DoJ and the FBI. You’re insane if you think otherwise.

So it is very clear you are not arguing in good faith

Not arguing in good faith? You cannot give a specific example of what Dems could have done to avoid this or what they can do now. You backed yourself into a corner and are now screeching seal team six nonsense.

Biden wouldn’t do it, Dems wouldn’t stand for it, and SCOTUS wouldn’t sanction it. It’s a nonsense argument to distract from the other vague nonsense you’ve said.

By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?

No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.

Immunity doesn’t make something legal, it simply puts the person beyond the reach of the law. You’re talking about a commander-in-chief using the military against citizens on US soil. All members of the military are trained to reject unlawful orders.

So first you’re assuming seal team six accepts and carries out an unlawful order. Then the entire DoJ ignores it, or is murdered, until they accept it. Then any legislators or justices that attempt to rein in such power are also assassinated. That’s what is required for your idea to make sense.

Guess what, SCOTUS is irrelevant to the calculation. Assuming you have all those things above, it doesn’t matter if SCOTUS conveys immunity or not. That president is beyond the bounds of the law anyway, with or without immunity.