PIA VPN

Is this the best marketing the world has ever seen? WTF i love PIA now

>Private Internet Access, a VPN provider, takes out a full page ad in The New York Time calling out 50 senators.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/Ma3ez
economist.com/news/leaders/21571873-how-stop-companies-and-people-dodging-tax-delaware-well-grand-cayman-missing-20
bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/crops-rot-while-trump-led-immigration-backlash-idles-farm-lobby
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They're worried they won't be the only ones selling your information now

I don't think you understand the draw of VPNs. If so much as a whiff of what you're suggesting leaked out, they'd be out of business in no time.

...

wtf i hate VPN now

>Every single one has an R prefix

Really flares the ol' neurons

>Senator Blunt
>Senator Boozman

*Suffix

What is a NSL.
What is a government honeypot.

Yeah let's trust the VPN which is based in America and has suspiciously incredible price to performance ratio

If you still support Republicans after this then you need to go see a fucking shrink, because you're either filled to the brim with anger and taking it out by "voting against the SJWs" or just a delusional idiot stuck in an abusive relationship.

It's a Republican proposal. The way politics works is you never vote across party lines even if it's something you are for. Fucking stupid, but I'm sure if this was a Democrat proposal you'd only see Ds.

>VOTE DEMOCRAT WERE THE GOOD GUYS!
>*Votes for TPP*

PIA is one to talk lmao. They caved into LEA one time and a guy got arrested. If you want a TRULY private VPN I'd suggest Mullvad among others

For me, it's more:
Voting against SJWs
Voting for social conservatism (transgenderism, for instance, shouldn't be normalized)
Voting for the only party that seems to put American citizens before foreigners
Voting for muh guns
Voting for muh taxes

It's a prefix, dumbshit

Even here the delegates vote for something even if the proposal isn't from their party.
I thought our government was dumb but when I see the American one, not that much.

Btw, why are Republicans against gun control (and that's a good thing to be against it) but authoritarian control of the internet history of millions of people don't bother them ? I don't get it

>takes out a full page ad in The New York Time calling out 50 senators
nobody reads Fake Times anymore

Okay Cletus

>voting for American interests is now being a redneck

Wtf I love Dixie land now

You're autistic kiddo

>pushing fake news propaganda
>good marketing
The point of the bill was to take power away from the FCC and give it to the FTC. This is to ensure FCC censorship powers are never an issue with the net.
archive.is/Ma3ez
shilly, but this explains it fairly well. They're just moving power from the FCC that Obama implemented during the net neutrality false dilemma psyop to the FTC – which means content is not to be censored (which is the power of the FCC)

The senate wasn't voting to "allow" ISPs to sell net histories to 3rd parties. It's just repealing Obama's bullshit in order to shift power to a non censoring entity (FTC). How many times does it need to be repeated?

Its more like the freedom of the Corporation to so what they want

Does it count as support if you're gritting your teeth and choosing the side that'll screw you over in slightly less unpalatable ways?

None of it is really logical. Republicans are all about guns because being backed by the NRA gives you tons of votes from the pro-gun crowd. Guns also happens to be part of redneck culture, along with country music, pickup trucks, and Evangelical Christianity. That's huge if you want votes.

On the other hand, Republicans often side with big businesses and the whole free market thing, so allowing ISPs to sell your internet history goes along with that.

>American interests
You mean the narrow interests of some rust belt shit holes. I know the box factory seems like "the economy" to you but unfortunately for you and your neighbors, the country has moved on

If Trumpism was actually implemented (which it won't be because business leaders would flip their shit and get him impeached in 2 seconds) we'd end up in an Argentina style nosedive

>$0.50 has been deposited into your account from the Comcast™ Public Relations Taskforce

Once that legal protection is removed, it ain't coming back.

>Paul (R-KY) not on the list

He didn't have to vote, he co-sponsored it

Somehow he thought abstaining would escape attention though

Does the Republican party exist solely to fuck over the people of America?

Yeah good thing we have the narrow interests of those rich people to save our country.

See these liberal schmucks, constantly contradicting themselves in every post.

Yep, just like the Democratic Party.

They just have disagreements over how, exactly, the people should be fucked over

These days? Yes, it's corporatocracy: the party. Congrats on noticing.

Actually Cletus, the Republican party was founded to free poor black people from their Democrat masters.

>those rich people
Along with every other sector of the economy other than bashing nails into boxes. It's not 1958 anymore, Cleetus. We are an advanced economy, at something that economists refer to as the global technological frontier. Bashing nails doesn't cut it anymore, that's for undeveloped countries. You should have stayed in school.

BTW, "liberal schmucks" like me are in favor of progressive taxation. There is no logical reason why the massive economic growth had to go entirely into the hands of a small % of the population, except that conservative schmucks like you got hoodwinked into believing in trickle down economics and when that didn't work, you were fed a line about how gays and minorities are why you're not a winner.

...

>All Rs
lol, thanks Sup Forums

What are the Dems trying to pass that will fuck us over?

TPP, dumb fuck

Why are you so angry?

>We should listen to Economists!
>We need to tax the rich!

I'm guessing you have never taken a class on Economics?
Wow, really gets me going.

The NSA programs that Snowden leaked were all the doing of a Democratic administration, remember?

Along with the whole "I, the President, assert the right to kill people by drone anywhere in the world based on secret evidence, and zero legal accountability anywhere" Dems defended it to the hilt.... when it was Obama doing it. Now suddenly they're aghast that Trump has the same power they asserted for themselves.

Why are you so fucking stupid that you don't know what the TPP is?

Didn't governors use to appoint senators? The GOP would have a 60+ majority right now if that were still the case.

Increased surveillance on civilians is a Republican idea.

The TPP was supposed to be a hedge against Chinese hegemony in Asia. I wasn't exactly a fan, but if Trump is supposedly going to "beat China", axing a major anti-China international agreement just to placate some illiterate hillbillies seems a bit hasty.

Nope, state legislatures. Changed by amendment in (I believe) 1911.

You're right about the outcome though.

Actually I have. But I can tell you haven't
>taxing the rich is bad
>wat is the laffer curve
Another thing for you to look up

>"liberal schmucks" like me are in favor of progressive taxation
b
So essentially, you want a slave class?
Progressive "liberals" (you're not actually liberal), want to keep a sector of the population in slavery so that shit can be cheaper for the rich and middle-class.

>"But we tax the rich too!"
Because the rich doesn't have the economic means to avoid taxation? What happens when these rich people get up and leave without any consequences, since progressive liberals like you also believe in free trade?

Sorry about your life.

>Dems are fucking us over by killing Chinese economic supremacy over half the globe

Really makes you think. I thought you niggers sucked Putins dick, not Jinping too.

The Patriot Act passed the Senate 99-1. All Democratic Senators save one (Feingold, D-WI) voted for it.

You may recall that the Democratic party showed little enthusiasm at sinking the thing when it was up for renewal, also. They made a few noises about abuse but, since a Democratic president was in office, at the end of the day they wanted the vase, unaccountable executive and national-security apparatus to stay where it was.

That is complete bullshit, considering the TPP was written with the intentions that China would also eventually join.
The TPP was created to enforce American patents on third world economies.

Taxing the rich is BAD. Most economists will say the same. Mankiw has said several times that taxing the rich takes away the incentives of being rich.

see

>Taxing the rich is BAD

We've gone full Republitard in this thread.

>So essentially, you want a slave class?
What, actually, do you think progressive taxation is?
>Progressive "liberals" (you're not actually liberal), want to keep a sector of the population in slavery so that shit can be cheaper for the rich and middle-class.
lmao
>Because the rich doesn't have the economic means to avoid taxation?
They do, and we should be working on ways to fix that. For instance looking more closely at the way dividends, capital gains, and so on, are taxed.
>What happens when these rich people get up and leave without any consequences
What, indeed? By the time the ultra-wealthy have decided they're better off in Dubai, we're all fucked anyway. We're a long ways from that, though.

>your dumb!

Amazing argument, shouldn't you be on Sup Forums?

Friendly reminder that there is exactly one rate of tax that is fair and just, and that's 0%

>considering the TPP was written with the intentions that China would also eventually join.

Fucking what?

China's proposed RCEP trade deal was started as a counter to TPP because they were not part of it. They tried to sweep through RCEP quickly before TPP could be finalized.

RCEP progress stalled once TPP came around to it's 2014 negotiation because it was progressing faster. Only for RCEP progress to begin anew once the orangutan killed TPP.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

So essentially you just said that your policies would fuck us over? Congrats, the ultra-wealthy generally are a lot more fiscally smarter than politicians. As soon as someone suggests your stupid economic-hurting policies, most ultra-rich people would be packing their bags, oh wait they already are.

>Taxing the rich is BAD.
Sure, just tax everyone else until they vote a retard into office who promises to burn down the whole house. Or just start rioting in the streets. That's much better.
>Most economists will say the same.
Nope.
>Mankiw has said several times that taxing the rich takes away the incentives of being rich.
Taxing anyone at all, according to a certain theory, takes away the incentives to work at all. Trouble is that isn't really how it works in real life because you're talking about a 100% tax rate which has (mostly) never been imposed. The question is not whether to tax. It's a given, mainstream economics says yes, tax people. Including rich people. The question is how much can you get away with before it's counterproductive. At this point in time, we are far below the optimal rates, mostly because of the way wealth and executive compensation is structured.

>Fucking what?
So you're severely stupid, huh. Obama even said he wanted China to eventually join.

>So essentially you just said that your policies would fuck us over?
No. What I said is that at the moment, increasing the taxes on the ultra rich is not going to drive anyone out of this country. And by the time you morons have fucked up this country by building walls and starting trade wars and trying to micro-mange the US economy via twitter, we're going to have much bigger problems than some plutocrats moving to Dubai. Fucking idiot.

>Sure, just tax everyone else
They already do that. How much capital do you think rich people have? Enough to sustain the current government? No. Enough to sustain batshit insane progressive policies? No.
Do you know who will actually be taxed? Oh that's right, everyone else.

>Enough to sustain the current government? No.
They actually do

The top 10% pays 90% of all the taxes

WE ARE ALREADY IN TRADE WARS YOU LITERAL FUCKING RETARD. WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRICE OF OIL HAS BEEN DROPPING? IT'S BECAUSE OF A TRADE WAR WITH RUSSIA

Try Mullvad, this shit is good

also just to add, the top 1% pay half of all the taxes

>They already do that.
That's the point, cleetus.
>How much capital do you think rich people have? Enough to sustain the current government?
What you seem to think I'm saying is "steal all their shit". That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that currently there are vast amounts of untaxed capital floating around:
economist.com/news/leaders/21571873-how-stop-companies-and-people-dodging-tax-delaware-well-grand-cayman-missing-20
and as a result, people (rightly) feel that the middle and lower classes are bearing the brunt of taxation and that the super rich are not paying their fair share. Paying their fare share is what needs to happen.
>Do you know who will actually be taxed? Oh that's right, everyone else.
I dunno about you but I don't personally have any friends with a bunch of offshore bank accounts and I'm sure neither do you.

You're a fucking idiot.
How much is the deficit even after the top 10% are taxed?
Your solution is to drive us even deeper into debt, what a great idea!

If there were no Republicans in the world we would literally have world peace.

According to your friend, the Rich is getting taxed 90%. Care to explain how the rich aren't giving their fair share?

The deficit comes about because of poor spending decisions and the raw ability to just offset your budget with money that you don't have. This isn't new, its been around since the early 1900's

>the Rich is getting taxed 90%.
Thats not what I said you dumb fuck

I said the top 10% of americans pay 90% of all taxes.

Thats not a 90% tax rate, thats all the taxes collected, 90% of it came from the top 10% of americans

>because of poor spending decisions
And your magical policies would change this?

How much is being spent on Obamacare already?

I like how you're asking me because you're too much of a pussy to ask him.

>And your magical policies would change this?
not who ever you assumed was making policy suggestions but you either have to push or pull or both

tax more, or cut more, or tax slightly more and cut slightly less. Thats how it'd be fixed

>You/re a pussy!

Stellar argument, as expected of a Liberal.

>How much is being spent on Obamacare already?
Not much more actually, the fiscal budget from 2013 to 2014 doesn't really have a significant amount more money dedicated to it for public healthcare spending.

>I said the top 10% of americans pay 90% of all taxes.
So it sounds like...the rich are paying their fair share.

>The non-partisan office [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

No that doesn't imply they're being taxed 90% their earnings you dumb shit.

The average marginal tax rate for a corporate entity is 39.1% where an american making some 36k a year will pay about 33% give or take

>lol 1.34 trillion is a drop in the bucket! Da reech will pay for it.

>it sounds like
Without knowing what they're being taxed on, what they actually own and earn, and how that compares to the bottom 90%, that seems like a premature assumption

As an extension to my fourth point ... Republicans seem to provide the best chance of keeping the U.S. majority-white.

If I'm being honest.

>an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.
Its not a lot when the 2015 fiscal budget was 3.8 trillion. Its really not that much at all especially since public healthcare spending and SS and all that makes up more than 1/3rd the entire budget

>I voted Trump because I believe Paco the Janitor took muh jerrb
Don't worry, we knew

>lol $110 billion is just a drop in the bucket!

Wow this is great logic here, I'm sure that a multitude of $110 billion entities wouldn't crush the camel's back.

>I voted Trump because I believe Paco the Janitor took muh jerrb
Yeah, bud. According to Liberals we NEED Paco there so that we can make shit cheaper for the rich and middle class, who will be taxed so we can let a corrupt government distribute it to you, the displaced.
Lets fuck over the poor! But lets also fuck over the rich and middle class even more! Because that's smart!

110b / 3800b = 2.8% of the entire budget

Its not a lot, you're crying over drops in a bucket, comparatively the amount spent on social security and public health spending is about 1.33t

If I recall correctly several locales have attempted to kick out all the Pacos thinking whites would rush to fill the gaps

But turns out, nope! White people are just lazy and the crops literally just rotted in the fields

>social security
Jesus Christ, you don't understand economics at all do you?
PEOPLE PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, it's a completely different operation than paying into Obamacare

>PEOPLE PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, it's a completely different operation than paying into Obamacare
>social security spending doesn't make up the federal fiscal budget

you're a fucking retard

people pay into taxes too, you pay social security tax which goes towards the same budget. It counts

>If I recall correctly several locales
And where's you source on this? I mean, these rich farming corporations wouldn't lie about something like this, just as a tech company wouldn't ever lie about not being able to find qualifying American candidates so that they could get more H1B visa workers.

I know it's not prison planet or brietbart, so try to cope

bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-06/crops-rot-while-trump-led-immigration-backlash-idles-farm-lobby

gee that almost sounds like zimbabwe when the opposite happened and there's actually sources for it

> They're just moving power from the FCC that Obama implemented during the net neutrality false dilemma psyop to the FTC – which means content is not to be censored (which is the power of the FCC)
This. It's not complicated. I think we're being shilled

*Before deductions

>you pay social security tax which goes towards the same budget.
No, actually it does not. It goes into the Social Security Trust Fund