>Republicans viciously oppose any tax hikes against rich people
>Trump comes out and admits rich people should be taxed more because 10% of 10 million dollars leaves you a hell of a lot better off than 10% of a thousand dollars
>Republicans support him and his tax plan
lol, they don't even recognize hypocrisy when it's a republican who says it.
Obama could go down the list of Republican talking points and give them everything they wanted, and they'd still find something wrong with it.
They just hate something when it's suggested by a liberal. They don't know why. They're just programmed that way from an early age.
>>55195686
The poor nigger in chief never gets his way, does he?
>>55195834
He gets his way, he just stopped trying to naively work with Republicans and bypasses them entirely now, as he should have done to start with.
Him trying to work with them for years is one of the things I hold against him. He should have known better.
>>55195949
>he just stopped trying to naively work with Republicans
When did he ever? Pouting that the opposition won't give you everything you want isn't "working with them." It's being a 50 year old crybaby nigger President.
>>55195686
And republicans could bend over backwards for Democrats and they'd still be unhappy. Go suck a fat dick.
>Republicans support what Democrats want now
>they still complain
>>55195949
Dindu nuffin, he a good president, trying to get his life back on track.
https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/
>>55196270
you seem extremely intelligent
>>55195686
>>55195949
Name one thing Obama has done that isn't a failure.
Obamacare? Bankrupt train wreck that has increased premium prices by 300-1000%
The middle east fiasco?
Everything he ever did with Russia?
The fact that he's used the espionage act more than every other president put together?
The way he's managed to destabilize every region of the world he involves himself with?
The fact that we have MORE people in gitmo than we did when he was elected? And we tortured more people during his reign than Bush's?
How about the fact that blacks are worse off than they were under Bush?
Or that 100% of new job growth has gone to illegals?
Or that women are more unemployed than they were when he was elected?
Or that more people are on welfare?
He's not a failure, he's a disaster.
>>55194954
>lower corporate taxes
>lower income taxes
>lower top marginal taxes
>"let me tell you a joke about Republicans!" :^)
Liberals literally cannot argue a single point without lying.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
>>55194954
I'll vote for whoever is toughest on immigration
>>55195686
Isn't that normal for both sides to do? That's just the result of bipartisan politics. Everything the enemy does is bad not because the thing itself is bad, but because the enemy is the one doing it. Yet because of the two sided nature of it, it can't have any form of gradient to the spectrum, so you are either completely for something or completely against, which helps contribute to the whole mentality of only judging things based on whether or not your side said it.
>>55194954
The best republican is a democrat, apparently.
Shit's on fire yo
![775[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/XF7Gufy.gif "775[1].gif")
>>55196521
>He's not a failure, he's a disaster.
>>55196564
Not lying when they are morons. Being wrong doesnt mean lying.
>>55196270
You must have a short memory if you don't recall all the meetings he held with the republican caucus to get them to come to agreements to things during his first 2-4 years. He did that at LEAST half a dozen times.
He was an incredibly naive president, but he tried. Republican presidents have never, in the last 100 years, done that for any democratic caucus. Reagan was the only one to come close, and he was already part liberal anyway.
>>55195949
>if only we had a one party state
>>55197337
I recall those meetings. Obama and his minions were the arrogant ones who weren't willing to compromise and stomped around on TV crying about it.
Also, since I recall these meetings, I also recall that the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House at the time and they couldn't get all of their own ducks in a row, which is probably the Republicans fault too.
>>55197500
Weren't willing to compromise? Are you serious? Do you know how many key provisions he dropped from the various bills he tried to get their help with?
I realize that liberals can never do anything right in your eyes, but your version of history is just flat-out false.
You don't have to like what Obama stands for to at least admit he was willing to work with other parties.
>>55197664
repubs shut the government down sveral times and threatened to do it several other times. they never got a single victory out of doing it, and made the american public super pissed in the process.
that's what republicans do. they don't work with people, they just fucking pout.
>this one buttmad shill poster ITT
>>55197860
>ITT, not a single republican capable of defending Trump's plan to raise taxes on the rich, just carefully avoiding the issue
I don't call that buttmad, I call that hilarious.
>>55197664
>Do you know how many key provisions he dropped from the various bills he tried to get their help with?
Please list them.
Again, making demands isn't "working with" it's making demands. The talentless nigger made demands, they got shot down, and there was not one single attempt at actual compromise. Just pouting and saying "they don't like me because I'm black. boo hoo."
>>55194954
>lol, they don't even recognize hypocrisy when it's a republican who says it.
You know how I can tell you're a Liberal?
1. You -assume- that all Republicans want less taxation of the wealthy
2. You, after the assumption, accuse all Republicans of being hypocrites
we're not hypocrites, you're just retarded. The phrase has been uttered around here a thousand times so I'll use it myself; false dichotomy.
>>55195949
>bypasses them entirely now, as he should have done to start with.
i think the USA is not the right country for you. China might be a better alternative
>>55194954
The rich should be taxed at around 25%, and then tax credits that encourage investment in things like lower income housing and private schools should be encouraged that can bring it down to 15%, getting then to spend money on infrastructure and things that may not be as appealing otherwise.
>>55197951
he's a nationalist. there is nothing to defend. people on the right like pat buchanan have been saying shit like this for years. you're just butthurt and i'm sorry for your loss.
>>55194954
It means nothing to Trump what the tax rate is on rich people. He's openly admitted for decades that he only makes money for the sport of it and doesn't actually need most of it. It's why he dumps so much of it on charity. Most people bad mouthing him don't actually know a god damn thing about him.
>>55197951
>he actually thinks that closing loopholes is a bad thing
>>55198040
>passing legislation and reform is making demands
So you're the guy who changes his definitions depending on which party a person belongs to. Got it. You can go back to Fox News now.
>>55198058
You know how I can assume you're a republican? Because you assume I'm a liberal for thinking Trump is playing you fucks like a violin.
>>55198088
Please shill, we don't want anymore of your Chinese shit. Gtfo.
>>55198132
But he's running for a republican and agrees with higher taxation on the rich. Period.
>>55198161
>raising taxes on rich
>closing loopholes
But you call this tyranny when a liberal tries it, you stupid schmuck.
>>55198100
>getting then to spend money on infrastructure
This is definitely something that needs to be driven home in regards to our communications industry. There are third world countries with better internet than us.
>>55198199
>So you're the guy who changes his definitions depending on which party a person belongs to. Got it. You can go back to Fox News now.
The old "I have no argument so I'll just scream FOX NEWS!" defense.
>>55198199
>you call it tyranny when a liberal tries it
I do?
I don't have any concept of tyranny, I'm a traditionalist.
Just because he agrees on slightly raising taxes on the rich and closing loopholes to stop them from avoiding US taxes (see Soros (^: ) doesn't mean fucking anything.
It's his platform.
What is your point here.
>>55198199
>But he's running for a republican and agrees with higher taxation on the rich. Period.
He's running as a Republican because he can't run as a Democrat. Webb's instantaneous campaign meltdown is a prime example of how badly the overton window has shifted in the past decade. Taxing the rich is now within the realm of right wing ideology.
>>55196378
Strong, your argument is.
>>55197951
As a conservative I see nothing wrong with closing tax holes even if it is a net increase in taxation. As we simplify the tax code the power of the IRS diminishes and we can fire a bunch of welfare queens and effectively lower the size of government. This has a double bonus that we can then lower taxes by more down the road.
>>55197337
You don't seem to recall the first four years where he brutally rammed down every piece of legislation he wanted and brushed aside the republicans.
kek
Trump's tax plan is a massive boon to most republican voters. and if you make six figures, you still save money on income taxes
he is talking about changing the vehicles that investors make money off of. that is different than what you are thinking, dumbass
ITT
