Uh-oh! Trump & The Johnson Amendment

[Secular Sanity]

The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates "free love" or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commun...o#Synopsis

Not income tax.  Progressive tax.  The Sixteenth Amendment.

[Syne]

Although Marx advocated the use of any means, especially including violent revolution, to bring about socialist dictatorship, he suggested ten political goals for developed countries such as the United States. How far has the United States -- traditionally the bastion of freedom, free markets, and private property -- gone down the Marxist road to fulfill these socialist aims? You be the judge. The following are Marx's ten planks from his Communist Manifesto.
...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.
- http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

During the 1800s economic thinking in the United States usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. One exception was during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. Interestingly, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. As Representative Justin Morrill of Vermont observed, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.”
- https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive...s-history/

Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, and the first US progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862 (which replaced the flat tax, first US income tax, signed into law just one year earlier and was increased a mere two years later).

In 1913, almost 20 years later, the ideas of uniform taxation and equal protection of the law for all citizens were overturned when a constitutional amendment permitting a progressive income tax was ratified. Congress first set the top rate at a mere 7 percent—and married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 today). During the tax debate, William Shelton, a Georgian, supported the income tax “because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax.” As Madison and Field had feared, the seeds of class warfare were sown in the strategy of different rates for different incomes.
- https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive...s-history/

Yes, the 16th Amendment allowed for a progressive income tax.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Yikes!  

"The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501©(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 501©(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.

In recent years, many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal it, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. Repeal has been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible. On May 4, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order easing the Johnson Amendment's restrictions."

Johnson Amendment

"President Donald Trump marks his first National Prayer Day in the White House by signing an executive order on religious liberty that is expected to severely weaken enforcement of one of the country’s foremost regulations separating church and state."—Newsweek

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/LAvHHTt2czU

A. by removing this it allows people or groups to money launder very large amounts of money through church groups and directly into political partys and or directly into politicians hands.

B. allowing it as tax deductable means it can be used to evade tax by way of donation to taxdeductable that directly pays profit to a political entity as a way of bribery for profit.

either this is an attempt to undermine the democratic system of government or it is an attempt to wipe out a vast number of small scale charitable organisations.
Considering the relentless attack of affordable health care i suspect it is a direct attack on charitable organisations of a smaller size to directly incumber them into disolution via imposing regulations that make them become far too costly to run to help low income & working class people.

how much have the devos's given to the republican party ?
200 million USD... ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexande...e364d5ac91

Sanders: “Mrs. DeVos, there is a growing fear, I think, in this country that we are moving toward what some would call an oligarchic form of society, where a small number of very, very wealthy billionaires control, to a significant degree, our economic and political life. Would you be so kind as to tell us how much your family has contributed to the Republican Party over the years?”
DeVos: “Senator, first of all thank you for that question. I again was pleased to meet you in your office last week. I wish I could give you that number. I don’t know.”
Sanders: “I have heard the number was $200 million. Does that sound in the ballpark?”
DeVos: “Collectively? Between my entire family?”
Sanders: “Yeah, over the years.”
DeVos: “That’s possible”

i am not personally opposed to individuals donating money to political partys.
it puzzles me why a politcal party would need soo much money. more so if they lack such a vast amount of public support to require such vast sums then it is quite clear they are not a party representing the popular opinions.
how many people does the Republican party employ each year & how much do they pay their employees. do they abide by anti-discrimination employment laws?

[C C]

[...] it puzzles me why a politcal party would need soo much money. more so if they lack such a vast amount of public support to require such vast sums then it is quite clear they are not a party representing the popular opinions.

Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spe...dency.html

"Through mid-October 2012, the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent $630.8 million and $360.7 million, respectively. Obama's campaign also spent about $593.9 million through mid-October 2008. Sen. John McCain's 2008 campaign actually spent less than Trump, about $216.8 million through mid-October."

- - - - - -

SIDENOTE: In losing the Rust Belt, they finally lost what little blue was left between the coasts. Bill Clinton realized the threat but Hillary and her staff put a muzzle on him. Preferring instead to address the media distractions that Trump was generating with his "campaign of insensitivity".

As a result, her daily news video / radio-sound bites were frequently pared down to just the vocal lashings at her election rival; and the promises of rescuing Muslims, Mexicans, women, assorted orientations, and those with expensive health problems from the savage jaws of forces like Mister CaveMan. While the latter was seducing crowds at his rallies with pledges to deliver the troubled proletariat from their job woes. (I.e., the media dogs and Clinton War Engine chased after the red herring trail while the "I'm just a dumb ol' narcissist" raided the henhouse.)

"During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization. 'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained. 'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

[...] Bill and Hillary had a vicious fight over the phone over who to blame for her sagging poll numbers, reveals a source close to the ex-president. Hillary blamed FBI Director Comey for reopening investigation based on Anthony Weiner's shared computer with Huma Abedin for her slump. Bill faulted Robby Mook, John Podesta and Hillary HERSELF. He claimed the three were tone-deaf about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters. 'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source."

Instead of regarding him as a component in Hillary's arsenal who recognized what was going on... Even mainstream and SJW-approved news sites sporadically depicted Bill Clinton as a bumbler during Hillary's campaign: Is Bill Clinton Helping Or Hurting Hillary Clinton's Campaign?

Some time after the loss, marxist Jürgen Habermas even appeared on Tavis Smiley's TV program to wail nostalgically that the Democrats needed to shift farther to the left, to return to the old "glory days" of being labor's hero (less emphasis on being the party of societal engineering and defender of nanny state / daycare for adults).

[RainbowUnicorn]

I don’t think that anyone is really concerned about the verbal support (the so-called free speech), C C.  That’s been happening for years. They’re concerned about the financial support.

Yes, the current wonks have their heads stuck up into that particular fixation. But what's curious (again) is that the original motivation for the prohibition didn't even revolve around concern over church political activity (neither the free speech nor the contribution aspects). Historically interesting to me, anyway -- it's not like I was running a poll or really expecting anyone else to raise an eyebrow over a dead crow in the cornfield.

its probably more about corporates wanting to hide their financial ownership of political partys by laundering their donation money through church groups.

---

[...] it puzzles me why a politcal party would need soo much money. more so if they lack such a vast amount of public support to require such vast sums then it is quite clear they are not a party representing the popular opinions.

Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spe...dency.html

"Through mid-October 2012, the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent $630.8 million and $360.7 million, respectively. Obama's campaign also spent about $593.9 million through mid-October 2008. Sen. John McCain's 2008 campaign actually spent less than Trump, about $216.8 million through mid-October."

- - - - - -

SIDENOTE: In losing the Rust Belt, they finally lost what little blue was left between the coasts. Bill Clinton realized the threat but Hillary and her staff put a muzzle on him. Preferring instead to address the media distractions that Trump was generating with his "campaign of insensitivity".

As a result, her daily news video / radio-sound bites were frequently pared down to just the vocal lashings at her election rival; and the promises of rescuing Muslims, Mexicans, women, assorted orientations, and those with expensive health problems from the savage jaws of forces like Mister CaveMan. While the latter was seducing crowds at his rallies with pledges to deliver the troubled proletariat from their job woes. (I.e., the media dogs and Clinton War Engine chased after the red herring trail while the "I'm just a dumb ol' narcissist" raided the henhouse.)

"During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization. 'Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt,' the source explained. 'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

[...] Bill and Hillary had a vicious fight over the phone over who to blame for her sagging poll numbers, reveals a source close to the ex-president. Hillary blamed FBI Director Comey for reopening investigation based on Anthony Weiner's shared computer with Huma Abedin for her slump. Bill faulted  Robby Mook, John Podesta and Hillary HERSELF. He claimed the three were  tone-deaf about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters. 'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source."

Instead of regarding him as a component in Hillary's arsenal who recognized what was going on... Even mainstream and SJW-approved news sites sporadically depicted Bill Clinton as a bumbler during Hillary's campaign: Is Bill Clinton Helping Or Hurting Hillary Clinton's Campaign?

Some time after the loss, marxist Jürgen Habermas even appeared on Tavis Smiley's TV program to wail nostalgically that the Democrats needed to shift farther to the left, to return to the old "glory days" of being labor's hero (less emphasis on being the party of societal engineering and defender of nanny state / daycare for adults).

sexism mysogyny domestic abuse gender stereo types patriarchal culture
in the USA these are all primary drivers of the majority culture.
seeing trump be a sexist bully and hillary the liberal equality minded victim just played right into the psyche of the average sexist american voter looking to take the easiest way to their own personal power & control issues played out as a cultural paradigm of proxy blame & victimisation.
it was a battle between husband and wife.
the husband was always going to win even more soo because the wife had already been deflowered in the minds of the average american sexist voter.

Hillary played who the media wanted her to play.
her key morals & ethics groups were telling her to put equality and morality 1st
however.... the swing voters care little for morality or equality unles it directly lines their pockets with cash.

meanwhile the swing voters who have no real moral fibre were looking to which way the popular wind would blow.
the swing voters idolised trumps wealth and so voted for him and his sexist arrogant super wealthy elitist image.
thats who they want to be... the republicans and swing voters want to be trump.
so they voted for him.
the 100 million voters who decided not to vote have not been plled to ask them why they did not vote and never will be because there is no way to make profit from doing such.

it was never about the economy, jobs, equality, equal rights, democracy...
it was always about greed.
pure and simple greed is the driving force behind the voter power that decides who will win.
ironicaly those who study electoral systems may suggest 2 party systems of FPP are better for democracy or worse than MMPR.

ironically the greed controlled swing voter decides if the morality party (democrats) wins, or the corporate profit party(republicans) win.
not really a democracy but better than tribal war.