User Profile: RajCaj

Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [7] October 21, 2016 at 9:24am

    To be fair, there is a difference between not paying the IRS what the law demands, and following the tax laws such that you are allowed to not pay federal income taxes.

    But it’s funny because half the population doesn’t have a clue how taxes work and/or on the take in regard to net taxes paid

  • [9] October 21, 2016 at 9:21am

    It goes back to the 47% comment from Romney. The society has sufficiently been engineered such that nearly half the country cannot relate, or understand, how & how much taxes are paid…..hence the “I’ll lower your taxes” message doesn’t register.

    That said, Trump missed a HUGE opportunity in the debate to set things into perspective when Hillary trotted that old dog out about him paying less “federal income tax” than one of his employees (or whomever she compared him to)

    All he had to do was say something to the effect of…..

    “I pay less in federal income taxes because I don’t take an annual salary. I earn money through investments, which is taxed at a rate of 15% for capital gains. While my tax rate is lower than an employee of mine who makes 50,000 a year, I pay more taxes in ONE year that the 50,000 / year employee will pay in their lifetime. That’s not fair?”

    I know his particular situation has more to do with complex tax law deferred write-offs, but in general the democrats get away with this “rich man paying a lower tax rate than their secretary” line because nearly half the population is on the take….and are getting more back than they are paying

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] October 21, 2016 at 9:06am

    Not sure if you are familiar with South Park but despite being pretty crass at depicting things going on in society, they are usually pretty spot on and are equal opportunity offenders.

    The way they are taking on the current election is probably a lot closer to truth than what you’d imagine coming from a politically incorrect cartoon.

    Not saying he’s trying to start a media organization, or necessarily saying he’s a plant for Hillary….but it’s highly likely he was just in it for the bump in his Trump branding. I don’t think he intended on it going this far, but had to ride the wave out after getting traction because of his need to control his branding as his campaign exits the election cycle.

    He needed to put up just enough of a fight for him to not look like a quitter, but not knock it out the park (if he was ever capable of doing so) because he’d actually have to be POTUS for the next 4-8 years.

    I don’t know how else you explain away how someone so smart could miss the opportunities he had to put this one away.

  • [1] October 12, 2016 at 1:40pm

    When exactly did Trump ever talk about getting things done in Washington constitutionally?

    He will go scorched earth on the people that opposed him, using every tool and lever at his disposal…including the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and executive order.

    You think there is going to be a revolution if he looses? What do you think Democrats will do if he strong arms them into kingdom come? They are the ones who are trained protestors, rioters and revolutionaries. They will prop up and elect a strong man more big & bad than Trump, and then the pendulum will swing back again the other way.

    That is where this leads

    In reply to Robert999's comment on the contribution Trump is on the verge of victory

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] October 7, 2016 at 4:46pm

    Listen to Glenn’s show much? He’s run “shorts” on Hillary’s scandals all week. He, or his team, hasn’t had a singe good thing to say about Hillary Clinton in the last 3 years. He’ picked through every single one of her scandals in great detail…as they’ve been reported in the news.

    He just thinks that both people are two of the worst candidates to swing the culture (and society)back from the deep end. In either scenario, he faces reprisals from whoever ends up in the White House.

    The increase in ad buys is hearsay from an anonymous source in Trump’s campaign. The cancellations are actual things that happened. Pulling money out of states you MUST win, when you’re at best within the error of margin (at worst loosing in) is news worthy no?

  • [3] October 7, 2016 at 4:35pm

    Define “over performing”. Trump has to win every single battleground state to have a path to victory.

    Even IF he were leading Hillary outside the margin of error (+5 – +6 pts)…..which he is not…why would you pull ads on the most ad worthy Democrat candidate to run for office. There is so much low hanging fruit on this woman you could run ads for days every which way.

    And if you were a Trump staffer in charge of handling public relations and someone just outed your candidate for pulling ad money out of MUST WIN states, while trailing in the polls…what would your response be?

    So much faith in this guy….

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] September 27, 2016 at 1:51pm

    Or as South Park put it…..a D-bag or Turd Sandwhich

  • [9] July 15, 2016 at 4:38pm

    Why on earth would you send the US military into Turkey to address a military coups?

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] July 5, 2016 at 5:51pm

    There have been a few people that floated the idea that the Bill / Lynch meeting leak was not a real leak….but theatre to wash Loretta’s hands of the controversy since she put the ball in the FBI’s court (who….up until now the media & inside sources have telegraphed that the agency was going to push for an indictment)

    Some local CBS affiliate in AZ scoops the story on the meeting, everyone (including democrats) feign shock, Loretta backs out and gives it to the FBI, knowing what the answer was going to be all along.

    Hillary walks and Loretta Lynch avoids the a potential controversy that would either cause an issue staying on as AG or a potential SCOTUS gig

  • [1] July 5, 2016 at 5:44pm

    If you give Comey the benefit of doubt….that might be the best he was able to do. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to lay it all out like that and at the very end do a 180 and say she’s not legally liable.

    He may have been compelled one way or another to not request an indictment. She is too big to fail.

  • [4] June 27, 2016 at 11:09am

    Then you’d be playing right into the rope-a-dope campaign they are executing. They want a fight in the streets (see knife fight in California today between the white supremacists & anti-white groups)

    The social engineers at the top of all this know that by creating social protections for one group to do whatever they want, while holding another group to a different standard will create animosity, then chaos, and then finally a social need for complete reformation of the constitution and the social bedrock of this country.

    He said it himself…. “So what’s going to happen is we’re going to have equal rights and justice in our own country, or we will restructure their function and ours.”

    This is about a Melting Pot Society vs Multicultural Society…not white vs black. There is a reason “Melting Pot Society” is a banned phrase on University of California campuses.

  • [4] June 27, 2016 at 10:54am

    Prog liberals like to trot out that “correlation does not equal causation” when it suits them but they sure as hell don’t have any problem with jumping to conclusions when they look at statistics that on the surface show the black community disproportionately deficient in any way.

    Pop black culture (IE Rap / Hip-Hop) actively promotes risky life choices (drug use, casual sex, infidelity, illegal gang activity, anti-social behavior) People in the black community (and to some extent outside it) adopt social queues from the manufactured pop black culture and suffer the consequences from it.

    Furthermore, Cultural Marxists attribute behaviors & traits that set people up for success as being “white culture” and call every black person that dares to “appropriate” those qualities Oreos, Uncle Toms and traitors to their race.

    The same people that created the boxes that people now fit in are the ones complaining about the boxes they put people in. Manufactured crisis for political ends.

  • [10] June 27, 2016 at 10:39am

    Cultural Marxist have an answer for that too….you see, black men only act like that (and black women only put up with them) because they are all acting out internalized oppression that white society puts on them. The whole…..well if you’re going to treat me like an animal, I’m going to act like an animal…but I’m not actively aware that I’m making that choice on my own bull crap.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 27, 2016 at 8:17am

    No, not everyone walks out with their diploma a sissy, pansy or brainwashed hyper-sensitive lib prog….but that’s not the issue. The issue is that *enough* of them do walk out that way. Enough to affect pop culture and rule sets at the institutions these “educated” and degreed people go to work at…and eventually end up leading.

    This list reads verbatim from the list circulated at UC Berkeley a year or two ago. What does that tell you? It’s institutionalized…it’s in the curriculum…it’s making the rounds slowly but surely.

    Turning a blind eye to what’s going on within a significant portion of the population because not *all* people are affected is exactly how we got here.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] May 24, 2016 at 1:15pm

    Debating 101…..paraphrase your opponents argument into your own construct and state it in such a way that it is easier to make a point.

    When you can’t make the point that the apples are orange in color, just turn the apples into carrots and suggest they are orange in color. Who can deny that?

    We have a legal system….as imperfect as it is, it’s still better than a lot of other systems this world has to offer. A well respected judge by advocates of the BLM movement ruled that the officer was not guilty.

    There might be injustices that need to be addressed, but this isn’t one of them…that was the point Kelly was trying to make. The point Deray was trying to make was that an example of where the letter of the law was followed – and example of it actually working – was actually yet another example of it not working, and this is why we need reform.

    Tarnishing examples where justice worked (just because you didn’t get the result you wanted) hurts the whole process…..unless it is your aim to take down the whole process.

  • May 17, 2016 at 4:07pm


    In the case of a locker room situation, allowing cis-gendered women to disrobe and expose private parts while getting dressed / showering but preventing transgendered women to do the same would be discriminatory. That’s the whole point….transgendered people claim that they are uncomfortable using facilities designated for their birth given gender…and denying them full use of the facilities of their chosen gender is discriminatory.

    Dealing with penises & vaginas is only part of the issue though. The other matter is with abuse of the law. There is a whole lot of grey space between glancing at someone and leering….between incidentally exposing oneself while dressing & doing so maliciously.

  • [4] May 17, 2016 at 3:21pm


    Actually, we ended up in this situation because city officials in Charlotte tried to create an ordinance / local law that would put special legal protection on all people identifying as transgendered to attend the restroom / locker room of their choice. The only reason the state of NC weighed in on this with their own law was to prevent a legal precedent from being created in the opposite direction in their state by local municipalities.

    So what’s the big diff between before Charlotte tried passing the ordinance and after?

    Common sense…and social order.

    The issue is with how being transgendered is officially defined by authorities on LGBT matters….which is that it is completely subjective, does not require any reassignment process (visual queues & commitment to the claim) and is allowed to be completely fluid.

    Prior to that, people used common sense. If you’re trans and you’ve walked the walk so to speak, you’re not likely to put others on edge by using a public restroom of your chosen gender. If you’re trans and you haven’t gone through with any sort of reassignment process, you err on the side of caution and attend the restroom of your anatomically defined gender – as not to cause a stir.

    So really, we are only talking about a fraction of a minority group of a minority group’s preference of restroom in jeopardy with NC’s law, given the unintended consequences and social unrest otherwise…and we are treating it like Jim Crow laws.

  • [6] May 17, 2016 at 1:43pm

    Also….it was the feminist movement that pushed for 50+ years that we live in a rape & sexually violent culture dominated by men to the point that most women view strange men as a threat…..PARTICULARLY if they are in the very definition of a female safe space….a women’s public restroom.

    Funny that…..leftists created a culture of “male stranger danger” to the point of hyper-paranoia and are now pushing to create laws that would provide said male predators easier access through plausible deniability to said female safe spaces.

    American left, the inventors of the self licking ice cream cone…

  • [5] May 17, 2016 at 1:37pm

    This is about creating chaos, not solving the immorality of human kind. If our society were so hell bent on fixing actual problems within the human condition, we’d be addressing the nearly 500,000 women in AMERICA that are in danger of undergoing genital mutilation by a backward culture that gets a free pass because they occupy a minority status.

    We’d be focused on the rampant misogyny that is the life blood of a significant section of our pop culture – Rap & Hip-Hop, which also gets a free pass because of protected status.

    There is so much low hanging fruit that we could actually fix, but we are making THIS the defining issue of civil rights, fairness & equality….an issue that affects little more than the feelings of a minority of a minority group of people, at the expense of a much larger group of people.

    This wasn’t an issue until it was made an issue. People didn’t fight this hard for same sex marriage. Why? How do you prosecute abuse of this new law if the only requirement is a subjective feeling of how one feels, which can also be fluid and change over time? You can’t….it’s chaos.

  • [3] May 17, 2016 at 1:24pm

    In regard to flunking PE because they refused to play shirts vs skins…

    Women do not show their chest because they have breasts that society has deemed socially unacceptable to show in public…they are different than a male chest in how they look & function. Regardless if whether or not that social standard is warranted, a person who does not have breasts, who otherwise feels like a woman, doesn’t have a rational claim to feeling embarrassed about showing their chest. You don’t have breasts. There is no social expectation for a male that feels like a female to not show their chest in public.

    If that’s how that person felt, they put that on themselves. Even within the bounds of the new thought process on gender & sexuality, a trans-female is not the same as a female.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go