LIBERBAL propaganda; the DOJ is NOT independent of the president.

And I'll bet that once again will claim you never said I learned all I know from listening to Fox News.

 

I have no way of knowing what you have learned. I only know what you say here.

 

So your fact-less, contrived, self-serving version of events is this; After Stone was tried and convicted by a jury for his federal crimes, four seasoned senior US attorneys, began to devise a sentencing recommendation(which is non-binding), from a sentencing guideline/formula, that any 1st year attorney could do. For some unknown reason they decided to mislead their own boss, by somehow leaking to him that there would be a lesser sentencing(no evidence presented). Although knowing that their boss would need to sign-off on their recommendations, devised a sinister plot, and for some unknown reason worth risking their jobs, decided to revise their sentencing recommendations to a harsher sentence of 7-9 years. Hoping that their boss wouldn't notice. These 4 idealistic attorneys then decided to resigned(not protested) from the Stone case, because they knew they had broke some unknown DOJ work and ethics rules(none of course mentioned). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/roger-stone-federal-prosecutors.html . Barr somehow finds out about their nefarious plot, before the President, and rescinds their final sentencing recommendation to probation. In spite of the DOJ's new recommendation, the President still chucks a tweet tantrum, criticizing the harsh sentencing of his long time fixit man and gofer. Why would he tweet at all? Your were wise to leave out, motive, facts, incentive/personal gain, plausibility, and logical consistency. Now your enigmatic, contrived, self-serving, fantasy version of events, makes more sense. Especially, to a child. This version is the poster child of all confirmation biases.

Based on inductive reasoning alone, I think that the most obvious version of the events, is also the most likely version. Barr WAS influenced by Trump's tweet tantrum, and rescinded the 7-9 year sentence recommendation, down to probation to please his master. There was never any earlier sentence recommendation. You just made that up. Perhaps he, like most of Trump's senior "yes men", thought that his actions, would placate the ego of his narcissistic master. And, just might protect him from going the same way as his predecessors, and other senior colleagues. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39826934 . But, I guess common sense is not very high on the priority list?

Are all these people NOT "principal officers" appointed by the President? Did I NOT clearly state that these principal officers serve at the pleasure of the President? Were any of these principal officers fired, or asked to resign by Trump? Did I ever say, or imply, that the President has "no right or authority to fire such"? Don't straw man me, with your silly misrepresentation of my words. I spend a lot of time, making sure that what I say is clear, concise, factual, logical, and NOT open to this immature kind of misrepresentation. I won't bother asking you to prove your groundless assertions, because, like Trump, you would just double-down on the lies, and deflect and manufacture the truth.

My point was two-fold. Although the President is the constitutional head of all the Departments under the Executive Branch of Government, he plays no role(other than through his executive orders) in the day-to-day activities of each cabinet departments. These cabinet DEPARTMENTS are suppose to FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY from presidential direct involvement. Hitler made a lot of poor military strategies, because he also thought that he was a "very, very smart person". Secondly, my point was WHY, were these people fired? And, WHY they disagreed with him? Did they just refuse to do his illegal biddings? Or, were they fired by Trump, for being too ugly, too short, too weak, too popular, or too dumb? Too bad, so sad, right? Nothing to do with their experience and qualifications.

Regarding, Stone, you stated that your version of events was factual. "I don't know about logical, but unlike your version my version is factual.". Clearly, it was anything but factual. You, like Trump, will never address the issues or questions directly. You will continue to spew out lies and half-truths(the President can fire anyone in the Executive Branch, because he is the head of the Executive Branch). And, you will keep spewing out this nonsense, until rational and reasonable adults, will simply give up out of frustration. They simply will loose patience in arguing with blind loyalists. Especially, when they continue to avoid answering any of the questions I raise, and the facts I present. I asked you a number of questions(#151), and you completely ignored all of them, to keep repeating rote learnt, and misapplied information. Real communication works both ways. It should be the equal exchange of information and ideas, not one-directional. These are the real functions of the President https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do

We were talking about "Principal Officers", NOT Federal Officers( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States ). Please don't say, "well the President is in charge of the Federal government, therefore, he must also be a federal officer", or we're done here. We were talking about Principal Officers, who are all appointed my the President, and approved by the Senate. What is absolutely mind-boggling, is your total lack of understanding of the nature of leadership. The problem with surrounding your self with "yes men", is that there is no other point of view. There is no dissenting opinions. And, there is no need for any compromises. Whatever Trump wants, it is up to his Yes men to get it done. What IS truly mind-boggling, is that you are willing to let this lying crooked corrupt business wannabe, and political incompetent, stack our government with only people that care more about keeping their jobs, than doing their jobs. And, that you can't see anything wrong with it. No response is certainly necessary.

 

The facts as I stated them you reiterate pretty good, though why you call them fact-less is mind boggling. You do err a couple of times. The rules that the attorneys violated were far from "unknown." Everybody knows it is really bad practice to get an authorization from your boss and then go do something completely counter. Nobody, and that includes you, knows whether Barr rescinded the recommendation or not. Third, it is just possible -- indeed highly likely -- that Trump simply responded to what was clearly a miscarriage of justice,

See, it is you, not me, that are making up "facts" as you go along. Inductive reasoning is often good logic; at other times just a euphemism for guess.

 

Maybe Basic Logic 101 should have been your first choice. If you are not going to provide any evidence that Trump is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the US(or Government), then just keep telling yourself that it is true, because you say so. I have presented numerous evidence that says, the AG is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Federal Government, and why. You can search the internet, or any Civics resource book, and it will still be the AG. So, you now know more than all the thousands of people who actually study the government, right? So, other then keep repeating the same false conclusion and composition fallacies, or the famous "duh, he's the President, and he's in charge of everything", what other evidence can you cite?

The Constitution DOES NOT explicitly establish a Cabinet. It is only inferred in the language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States The role of the Cabinet is to serve as an "ADVISORY body to the POTUS". But it functions AUTONOMOUS AND INDEPENDENT of the President. Also, the VP and a majority of certain members of the Cabinet, can remove the President from office, for being unfit and unwell and unbalanced. The President can send advisors to sit in on Cabinet meetings, but these advisors have no special powers. The VP is also the President of the Senate. Does this mean that the VP has the power to control the Senate? Of course not. He can only cast a tie-breaking vote. Does anyone with a few working brain cells, believe that the office of the POTUS controls, or should control, every department, every agency, every committee, or over 50 different commissions, in the Executive Branch? Should the POTUS have the power to drain our Treasury, tell our Defense Department where to wage wars, have our Commerce Department start trade wars, or tell our Justice Department to enact, or enforce whatever laws he wants, whenever the mood strikes him?

I voted for neither. One was a spoilt immature rich daddy's boy. And the other was a corporate apathetic corporate mouthpiece, that would sell her mother's soul to maintain her image, money, and self-importance. Neither gave a damn about the interests of the people. After over 70 years, when will people like you realize, voting rich people into office, has never helped poor people? Bernie and Tulsi are our only hope for a safe future. My opinions about Trump are based entirely on the facts, and the words out of his mouth. Maybe I should also complain to him directly, about my late parcel deliveries. Since he controls, and is the head of the Executive Branch.

 

I have six crew chiefs and a general manager, but I'm still the boss. Some of the new guys don't even know who I am or why their immediate supervisor keeps me around. It's actually pretty funny sometimes.

 

Read the first sentence of Art 2 of the US Constitution. That’s the evidence

 

Any portion of the US Constitution is good for instruction, but no portion is good for conclusion. Conclusions should only be drawn from the full counsel of our constitution.

 

The power of the Executive vest in a President. Pretty clear

 

I call your version of events fact-less, because nothing in your version, is based on any facts. This is what Barr stated, "Though Barr maintained he did not disagree with Stone's conviction, he said the initial sentencing recommendation was excessive. He said he directed his staff to amend the recommendation before Trump called it "horrible and very unfair." What does this statement suggest to you? Never mind, probably nothing.

What was the early sentence proposals that these attorneys recommended to the AG? Other than the 7-9 years? (you haven't a clue, therefore fact-less)
What are the rules that the 4 attorneys violated, that was "far from unknown"?. (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less).
What was the authorization that these seasoned attorneys got from the AG? And, still did the opposite? (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less)
What is the evidence for your probation to 2-3 year recommendation? (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less)
What is the evidence that demonstrates, that the attorneys did not quit out of protest, because of their perception of presidential meddling? (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less)
What evidence shows that Barr rescinded the sentencing recommendation for the Presidents fixit man, before the President's tweets? (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less)
What evidence supports any nefarious/sinister motives by these attorneys, as payback for his being acquitted? (you don't have a clue, therefore fact-less)

So, when I claim that your version of events is FACT-LESS and self-serving, the above are the specific reasons why. You are certainly welcome to present the facts/evidence to dispute these claims, and justify your version of the events. But we both know, that that "ain't gonna happen".

Everybody knows why Barr rescinded the sentencing recommendations, but nobody can prove it. It doesn't matter what Trump says, or tweets. It only matters if what Trumps says, directly influences the way the DOJ administers the law. This would be a clear abuse of presidential power. You just don't get it. These people are just trying to keep under the Trump radar. They do not want to attract any attention to themselves.. Most of the people with any moral principles left, were either fired or resigned. No one wants a job that consists of damage control, and lying.

Your take on inductive reasoning, is almost as bad as your understanding of the Stone's fiasco. Inductive reasoning is the foundation for the Scientific Method of Investigation. Solving crimes, doing research work and experiments, building Theories and Mathematical Laws, are all based on inductive reasoning. But I guess for you, it is "often good logic; at other times just a euphemism for guess", Incredible.

 

Guess what? It was not the people that voted Trump into office. It was the electoral college. He lost the popular vote.

So, you are a person who believes in a Partocratic Autocracy. This means, that whomever the people elect as their representative, has the power to make ALL executive departments subservient to his will. These departments are controlled by the President and his party. Filling the Cabinet with Yes men, is not the mark of a true leader. It is the mark of an unconfident, diffident, paranoid, insecure, incompetent fake, who hides behind power. A true leader welcomes alternative views, is not afraid of being wrong, and doesn't mind the challenge of convincing others with different views. A true leader fills his cabinet with the most experienced, and the most qualified applicants. In this way, all voices are heard, not just the partisan voices. Loyalty should be low on the list of qualifications. Have you ever even once thought, that the majority of people can still be wrong? Thank God, the framers of our Constitution did. Hence, the checks and balances, and the separation of powers.

Was it the wishes of the federal employees, to not get paid for over a month? Was it the wishes of the mothers to not know why their sons had to die, fighting in wars that profit only the rich? Was it the wishes of the people to keep women and children in detention cages, indefinitely? Was it the wishes of the people to spend hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on regime-change wars? Was it the wishes of the people, to NOT have Universal Healthcare? What voters are you talking about? Are you just talking about the Trump voters, and bugger the rest of us? Those Trump voters are leaving in droves. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...sk-2020-isn-t-losing-young-people-ncna1018216

I'm really not interested in the past practices of our earlier Presidents. Clearly the circumstances would not be the same as today. Instead of using the past practices of Presidents, to justify, or excuse the current practices of this President, you should be using their practices to highlight the mistakes they've made. But, I guess confirmation bias, will always get in the way. Right?

.

 

Just curious, but why cite a NYTimes piece? They've certainly been wrong, and decidedly partisan of late, so why trust what their opinion is?

 

It doesn't matter whether you stand behind, under, or in front of your words.. As long as they come out of your mouth, you are responsible for them. It is very convenient to simply label any argument as a false(fake) narrative, and dismiss any evidence, as only supporting that narrative. Therefore, making any evidence irrelevant. Of course you are just avoiding the questions, and dismissing the evidence.

My statement was that I could prove the posters assertions, with a higher degree of certainty, than you could disprove his assertions.

Most senior advisors are afraid that Trump will find a reason to fire them, if they get under his radar.
Trump has fired, or asked people to resign, for frivolous reasons.
Trump is a documented chronic liar.
Trump only hires people who are completely loyal, and obedient to him.
Trump has dismissed many, many people, who opposes, or stands up to him.
Trump went on a tweet tantrum, expressing his dissatisfaction about the AG's sentencing recommendation for Stone
R. Stone was Trump's long-time friend, fixit man, and mentor.
Trump orders the murder of a foreign national, in a sovereign country

So, when Trump tweets how upset he is with the recommended sentencing of Stone, and the sentencing is later reduced to probation, there is a high probability of certainty, based on these facts, that Trump may have influenced Barr's decision to reduce the sentencing to just probation. What is your evidence, that suggest that Trump does not interfere, influence, or indirectly/directly affect, departmental autonomy and independence? Lets see your list of facts?

I won't bother asking, how that really bad analogy, applies to the US attorneys, the DOJ, the AG, and Trump. I'm sure that your answer will be even worse than your analogy.

 

"...and dismiss any evidence, as only supporting that narrative. Therefore, making any evidence irrelevant. Of course you are just avoiding the questions, and dismissing the evidence."

If you have any evidence, post it.

"My statement was that I could prove the posters assertions, with a higher degree of certainty, than you could disprove his assertions."

If you have to qualify your "proof", it's not proof.

Proof: "information, documents, etc. that show that something is true synonym evidence

• conclusive/definitive/scientific proof"

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/proof_1

 

Incredible. It is hard to believe, just how deeply rooted cognitive bias is in the human psyche. Once we are convinced of something(factual or fantasy), it becomes almost impossible to become unconvinced of something. I just listed 8 facts to support my conclusions, with a HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. You totally ignored them, as though they didn't exist. Do you argue the merits, or the factual basis of the evidence? Of course not. Do you answer any of my questions, or provide any evidence to support your own point of view? Of course not. Do you, at least, challenge the evidence I have listed? Of course not. Do you even discern between proving something, and proving something with a high degree of certainty(i.e., we can prove that Gravity exists, with a high degree of certainty, but we cannot prove that Gravity exist absolutely)? Again, of course not. Just more of the same repetitive, mind-numbing parroted nonsense, from your master's mouth. Just more of the same mindless arrogant obstinance, also shared by your master. Just how many effigies do you have of your God King?

Instead of addressing the subject, it's grammar and vocabulary lessons. Really? No matter how much evidence I present, it will always be more than the zero evidence that you posit. No matter how many ways you are proven wrong, you will never accept the proof. And, no matter how many times your logic is challenged, you will simply create your own logic to fit. I have had much better debates with children. At least their truths are based on honesty and innocence. Not on ignorance and political indoctrination.

I think we're done here. All one-directional arguments are intellectually dishonest, childish, and futile.

​

 

Please, say it ain't so Bernie. He must be just misunderstood. No one can be this bad Bernie. Can they?

 

When you are the best, you know what is best, you don't hire people for their advice, you hire people to do your bidding.

If Trump was flawed sure, maybe he needs the advice of others, but he is probably the smartest person on everything, on the military, on the economy, on criminal justice reform, foreign and domestic policy, and ect.

If Congress wasn't so brain dead, we could have:

Deported all the illegal immigrant latins by now already
Built a wall to keep them out
Taken oil from the middle east
Wiped North Korea off the face of the Earth
Taken over Palestine and given it to Israel
Invade Mexico if they refuse to do something about the cartels
Make the UN subservient to us
And stop this war on the rich and give the rich some well deserved cut backs for all the jobs we've created for the ungrateful disgusting working class.

I AM TIRED, TIRED of my money earned, to go to some druggies who can't work, to go to people who haven't been in this country for generations making money. Why should the money I earn for my kids be taxed? Thank GOD Trump ended the estate tax, 40%?! When you as a couple have more than 10.4 million? 10.4 million ain't nothing and the government wants their greedy hands off it. Thank god for the second amendment.

Do you know how many houses some rich people have basically paid to the government? Do you know how many things a lot of rich people could buy if they weren't taxed like pigs?

 

Still waiting for proof...

"I just listed 8 facts..."

Where?

 

Please take off the cognitive blinders.

"Most senior advisors are afraid that Trump will find a reason to fire them, if they get under his radar.
Trump has fired, or asked people to resign, for frivolous reasons.
Trump is a documented chronic liar.
Trump only hires people who are completely loyal, and obedient to him.
Trump has dismissed many, many people, who opposes, or stands up to him.
Trump went on a tweet tantrum, expressing his dissatisfaction about the AG's sentencing recommendation for Stone
R. Stone was Trump's long-time friend, fixit man, and mentor.
Trump orders the murder of a foreign national, in a sovereign country

All are facts. Now let's see yours. Or, is this debate all about me?

 

Most senior advisors are afraid that Trump will find a reason to fire them, if they get under his radar."

Speculation

"Trump has fired, or asked people to resign, for frivolous reasons."

Opinion

"Trump is a documented chronic liar."

Gross exaggeration

"Trump only hires people who are completely loyal, and obedient to him."

Patently false

"Trump has dismissed many, many people, who opposes, or stands up to him."

??!? And?

"Trump went on a tweet tantrum, expressing his dissatisfaction about the AG's [not AG] sentencing recommendation for Stone."

Besides this being another false assertion; was it a dark amd stormy night?

"R. Stone was Trump's long-time friend, fixit man, and mentor."

Is this where you try to force a "convergence of facts"?

"Trump orders the murder of a foreign national, in a sovereign country."

Therefore, Trump interfered in a court proceeding?

 

I’ve had a hard day’s night, so please allow me this small bookmark of a post and rest a bit before I attempt a composed reply to this spectacular piece of post. Hopefully I’ll have some luck in getting a mod to preview my response because I’m not quite sure where the line is on a response to a post like this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear:_Trump_in_the_White_House https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...ans-too-scared-sherrod-brown-2020-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/us/politics/fear-trump.html https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mp-government-executive-branch-rebecca-solnit

Speculation? Only to the willfully ignorant, and the intellectually challenged. NOT speculation, FACT!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-or-misleading-claims-his-first-three-years/ https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-1-to-111 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/donald-trump-mueller-lies

Gross exaggeration? NOT EVEN CLOSE. In fact, an exaggeration of Trump's lies and deceptions, would be a charitable description of the veracity of his lies. So, NOT exaggeration, FACT!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...times-trump-insulted-people-he-appointed.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...people-trump-has-fired-or-threatened-to-fire/ https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/...-or-been-fired-from-the-trump-administration/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/14/14609348/trump-hire-best-people https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/31/16065040/donald-trump-disloyalty https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinio...p-family-white-house-jobs-20170405-story.html

Opinion? Patently false? PROVE IT. Does the evidence more than suggest, that Trump hires and fires people based on their level of loyalty to him? Of course it does. He couldn't care less about their experiences, skills, or other qualifications. What are the specific qualifications does Jared Kushner have, to be Trump's senior advisor? Or, his experiences to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine? None at all! But, he IS loyal and obedient. They are both, America's worst embarrassments. So, NOT opinion or gross exaggeration, FACT!

Did Trump go on a tweet tantrum, voicing his dissatisfaction about the sentencing recommendations, or not? FACT. Was R. Stone a longtime friend, fixit man, mentor, and gofer for the Trumps? FACT. Was R. Stone tried and convicted of federal crimes? FACT. All of these facts go towards Trump's motive, for ultimately influencing the sentencing recommendation. Any rational and independent thinker, can easily connect the dots. Our "dark and stormy night", began the day the underbelly of our American society, and the politically disenfranchised, voted this career conman into office. And, YES, it is the convergence of all the FACTUAL EVIDENCE, that also say so.

I won't bother you with the evidence. His bragging about it says it all. He was suppose to advise NATO and Congress before killing anyone in another sovereign country. He didn't. Therefore, his actions were illegal, both internationally and domestically. Of course he DID notify Israel(civil rights violators) and Saudi Arabia(home of terrorism) before his actions to get their blessings(another fact easily assessable). He is now also a war criminal in the eyes of the world. He, like you, presented no evidence to support his fantasy excuse of "immanent and immediate danger". Maybe you think that it is alright to kill TEN people, just to get ONE, but I don't. So, YES. If Trump can interfere in the DOD's protocol directives, and abusing his power as Commander in Chief, to allow and approve the illegal murdering of sovereign citizens, what would he care about affecting decisions made by the DOJ? What would this "Billionaire" care about "s**tholes" like Africa and the Middle East? He is a Sociopathic Narcissist with almost unlimited power to use. It is mindboggling, and a testament to Trump's control, that you are incapable of drawing these same conclusions.

Now it is your turn. Dispute my facts with your own facts. Come on, lets see them. Based on Trump's lies, character, criminal history and "dark" associations, chronic lying, and his demand for loyalty, why should I NOT believe that he would do anything to tip the scales for his mentor, and fellow criminal? Let's hear your facts, not just your denials.

I spend a lot of time and effort, in doing the research BEFORE I open my mouth. If all you are going to do is belittle and deny, any of the easily falsifiable and verifiable evidence I deposit, then don't waste any more of my time. Any moron can claim Gravity does not exist, or that the Theory of Evolution is false, as long as they don't have to prove it. Any mindless daft nincompoop can sit back and dismiss any factual argument I present. But it takes an honest and intelligent mind, to posit their own factual, verifiable, and falsifiable counter argument. Which you don't. If your version of the facts, is based ONLY on the consensus of belief, of you and people like you, then you are all part of the problem. Facts should be independent of a consensus of belief So, instead of me wasting my time, presenting more facts for you to dismiss, or ignore, PRESENT YOUR OWN FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT, or just BUGGER OFF. If not, it might be best, that you step aside and let someone else in, who can deposit more than just grammar and vocabulary to just occupy space.

So, if looking at all the cites will just challenge to your attention span, or that everybody else is wrong except you, or that Trump is just a misunderstood nice guy, getting a bum rap because of political sour-grapes, then don't waste my time responding. I only want to hear the facts, not your misplaced loyalty. You have already proven, that you have nothing verifiable or relevant to say. I somehow don't see that ever changing. Unlike you, I won't simply dismiss or ignore the evidence I receive.

 

Can't disagree with any of that. It highlights a fundamental flaw in the way the Republic runs as per the Constitution which needs a serious re-write to take into account contemporary times and blokes like Trump. It is obsolete.

 

Thanks for posting those links. Now, I see where you're getting all that nonsense.

 

Your post raises so many red flags, that I'm not sure if you are being serious, or just have a warped sense of humour. No rational thinking person, would openly advocate for the suspension of our Representative Democracy, in favor of an Autocratic Dictatorship. I would never give up our system of Government, with its Constitutionally guaranteed rights, checks and balances, and its separations of power, not even for God Himself.
​

The only thing Trump has been the best at, is avoiding doing jail time. When he is voted out of office(unless they screw Bernie), nothing will save him from jail. Not even a pardon. After multiple bankruptcies, failed businesses, bad business decisions, firing the same people he hires, I find it a real stretch to call him the "smartest man on everything". I suppose if your are an idiot, and you hire smart people that will do your bidding, it just might give others the perception that you are also competent and smart. How do you rationalize, that any person without any military, political, elected, legal, or justice experience, would know everything about these areas? Remember, we are talking about a man whose decisions are driven by his rage, envy, ego, and insecurities. A person like that, can easily loose sight of his own sense of humanity.

Are you talking about the 40% Estate taxes, AFTER THE FIRST $11M? Or after the first $22M of inherited wealth, if you give people you know, or set up trusts, using a maximum of $11M. Trump DIDN'T end the estate taxes, he simply doubled their deductions. So, unless you are expecting to inherit more than $22M, the 40% tax has no relevance to you. But, I'm sure that the future wealthy 2% of society will be thankful. Are you seriously suggesting, that the super rich should use guns, to protect themselves from being taxed on their inherited wealth(not worked for), above $22M? That is insane.

Did you even stop and think, just how a person becomes rich(not through inherited wealth)? Do you think that they go to a golden goose, or grow the money on trees? NO, IT IS OFF THE BACKS OF THE WORKERS. Do you think that employers hire workers, because they are just being generous with their wealth. No, they hire workers to generate more wealth. Are you really this gullible and naïve? I guarantee, that there are very few small business owners, who are rich. The more workers and technologies you have, the more products, goods and services, you can produce. Thus, the richer you can become. Maybe the government should also tax the over $7T, the rich are hiding in off-shore accounts. Even a 1% wealth tax could give millions a better education, better housing, and can save millions of lives. It is the working class that created the rich class. Not the other way around. What do you think will happen, as the separation between rich and poor widens.

There is no law that prevents undocumented workers or illegal aliens from working in the US. All that is required, is that they must pay taxes. And they pay taxes in spades. The Federal government makes over $14B in taxes from illegal and undocumented aliens. And, they can never receive any government benefits and basic protection, from the system that they are paying billons into. Did you choose your own parents, or your own place of birth? Maybe misguided xenophobes like you, should read what is written on our Statue of Liberty again, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!". Either we are a land of opportunity, or we are not.

Finally, are you really advocating that America should go to war with the world, by violating all international and domestic laws? Do you really want America to,
Kick any non-Americans out of our country? Put the children born here in detention centers, and send their parents packing? Or, will you just amend the Constitution, and then kick the children out as well?
Build a new Berlin wall on American soil. So, we now tell Germany to do as we say, but not as we do, right? Thanks for making us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.
Illegally invade sovereign countries, just to steal their oil and other resources we want to control. Trump even asked his generals, during the Iraq war, "Why don't we just take the oil".
Invade a country that has nuclear weapons? Are you crazy? Why don't we just leave them alone, and lift the sanctions? You may not care about the rest of us, but I do.
You want to give a sovereign country, to another sovereign country? That is ludicrous. What other President would try to buy Greenland from Denmark? Sheer Madness.

The world is NOT this simplistic. And, hopefully, neither are you.
.

​