Author Topic: The 2020 Election Thread  (Read 144395 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #70 on: January 04, 2019, 03:57:49 PM »
I love getting called for jury duty. I don't get why people hate it so much.
I've only voted once in my times of being of age to do so (4 elections now) and that was for Romney.  I think I'd vote for him again if it came down to him vs a Warren/Hilary/Bernie.  I think him vs. Biden would be a good one.
I agree, and it'd be a huge step back towards sanity and civility. It'd also be a slam dunk for Romney. Republicans are all quite happy to vote for old, rich, white guys, whether they're Nazis or not. Democrats are already making a stink that there aren't enough transgendered, vegan, Eskimos on the ballots.

As for not voting, I've already got two valid reasons (foregone conclusion and they all suck), but Powerslave's given me a third. Now that I'm disenfranchised maybe I'll stop getting jury summonses. If that's the case I won't be re-registering.

You guys.  I was on a jury - crack dealer caught with three cakes, a handgun and $3000+/- in $10's and $20's, all in his toddler's back pack - and it was a fascinating four days.  Especially when we hung because two women - one who lived a block from the defendant and one who was straight out of central casting for an Elizabeth Warren commercial, dripping blue all over the jury room table - refused to even debate let alone consider guilty.
I think I'd enjoy actually being on a jury. That's not what happens, though. They order me down there at 0800, and if I'm lucky they send me home at 1100 because they have enough to fill any pools. Unlucky is that I wind up with a middle number, so I don't get sent home but I'm still unlikely to get called up. That gets me out a 1300. Worst is when I'm actually assigned to a pool, and then wait until after lunch for a voir dire that will invariably eliminate me. That's damn near a full day down the drain. It's never been anything but a complete waste of my time.

I got selected to be on a jury a couple years ago, and we were waiting outside the courtroom for almost two hours waiting to go in. The judge came out and told us that the lawyers reached an agreement and the case was settled. I was really bummed because I wanted to cast a guilty or not guilty vote, but it was still kind of cool to get that far. There's a lot of places in this world where the accused don't have the privilege of receiving a fair trial. I kind of take pride or honor in the fact that I get to participate in such a process.
And I get that. I just think we could find a way to not inconvenience ~500 random people per day when we should have a pretty good idea how many will actually be needed.

The last time I was called up I got voir dired for a DWI case and it was a hoot. From the questions being asked the circumstances of the case were pretty clear and the kid was obviously guilty (he crashed his car, acted a fool on video, and blew over a .08 (but probably less than .014)), but I'd have bet good money on his good ole boy lawyer getting him off. Dude was really sharp, and the lead for the state was definitely lacking. Alas I had a high number and was never going to get empaneled. I really wanted to stick around and watch the first part of the trial, but as normal, they picked the worst possible day to call me up and I had to run. Always wondered how it turned out. Also found an attorney if I ever do something stupid and get DWI'd. I was going to ask him for a card, but he already mentioned he didn't have any when he wanted to offer one to a panelist he DQ'd (she was going to need one at some point).  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2019, 04:29:23 PM »

For example, I voted third party primarily because of one thing that Trump and Hillary had in common: I didn't feel I could trust either of them.  At all.  And yes, I was aware of the differences between them, but the differences didn't seem to matter much, because I didn't trust either of them...The bottom line is that I could not, in good conscience, vote for someone I couldn't place any trust in.  That was more important to me than their differences. 

This is significant, because data shows 'lack of trust' in Hillary was one of the primary motivations for voting against her. Yet as surprising as this may be, Hillary Clinton was far and away the most honest of all the candidates in 2016. Jill Abramson (political correspondent for Britain's Guardian newspaper and a fierce critic of Hillary Clinton over more than 2 decades) wrote a now-famous article in March 2016 titled: This May Shock You: Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

Abramson analysed a set of fact-checking sites and data analysts and found that Clinton told the truth more than any other candidate, including Sanders, Kasich and Cruz (Trump of course came last in the analysis, and was found to be "the most dishonest candidate ever measured", as opposed to Hillary, who was at the other end of the spectrum in first place for honesty). And when she left the State Department in 2013 she was given the highest ratings on record across both sides of the American political aisle (yes, by her Republican colleagues too) and also from her Western international equivalents for her performance as Secretary of State.

The problem with Hillary - as noted by Abramson, and acknowledged by Clinton herself in her book - is that she is extremely guarded. Her hatred of the press (well documented) leads her to be incredibly cautious when it comes to giving out information, which creates the impression that she's shifty and hiding something (and being Bill Clinton's wife brings its own tonne of guilt-by-association baggage). But the facts show that she almost always isn't. By the standards of politicians, she is actually remarkably honest. That people believe she isn't is testament to the successful power of the relentless information campaign waged against her by Wikileaks (Russia) and other actors who flooded the internet with stories about her emails while suppressing information about Trump and the 3rd party candidates (one example of hundreds - remember the now-infamous 10th anniversary party thrown for the state-owned Russian propaganda channel Russia Today in December 2015 (a central part of what ended up convicting Michael Flynn), at which Flynn and Carter Page sat at Vladimir Putin's table? Show of hands, how many people here know that also seated at Putin's table that night was a certain Jill Stein, that 'honest' and squeaky clean Green Party presidential candidate? People voting for Jill Stein because they didn't trust Hillary is a subject of great mirth over here in Russia).

There are many things I object to in Hillary Clinton but her 'dishonesty' isn't one of them. This is 2019, do you really need your politicians to be 'honest'? You can easily check 98% of the information they give out for yourselves (and the other 2% is stuff that doesn't directly concern us), you don't need to hear it from them. Politicians are trained and taught to speak to the lowest level of intelligence, they are not giving out dense heaps of abstruse information when they speak to us. 40 years ago we had to rely on them to be honest with us, but now we can check the stuff they say in seconds.

My objection to Hillary is actually connected with her honesty and directness. I believed her when she said she was was going to hit Russia hard with sanctions if elected.  I believed her when she said she was going to do what Obama didn't and arm Ukraine. Hell, even though I often use it to beat her with at another board some of us post at, I even have a grudging respect for her notorious off-camera comment about Gaddafi ("We came, we saw, he died, HAHAHAHA!!!"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

While every other US politician was churning out the usual American shit about 'democracy' and 'freedom' and 'fighting terrorists', she was as plain as day: "nah, we went there and had him butchered" (by the exact same people who went on to kill her own ambassador in Benghazi).

Few other politicians have been subjected to the level of scrutiny that she has, and when properly analysed the conclusion is that she's as honest as American politicians come. But because she is so disliked by certain actors, and because we are swamped in an unmanageable daily flood of information, it is easy to give the impression that she's unusually untrustworthy, but the facts don't corroborate that.

       




« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 06:51:57 PM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23448
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #72 on: January 04, 2019, 04:49:06 PM »
I didn't trust Hillary at all when it came to abusing the system for her own financial game. But I did trust her to not completely destroy our relationships with the rest of the developed world.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #73 on: January 04, 2019, 05:45:03 PM »
As for the topic of the thread, I'll be keeping a keen eye on the 2020 election but it's too early to be making predictions, because I think the majority of people vote on the basis of how their lives are a week or so before the election. A lot will depend on the state of the economy, health, education, roads and national security in late October 2020, and also on the condition of American society at that time.

One of the interesting questions for me in 2020 will be: how does America assess the events of the last 5 years (I'm including 2015 because it was a campaign year when the vitriol and nastiness really began in earnest)? What is its verdict on the Donald Trump experiment? There's a treatise by the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville (called Democracy in America), who traveled across the United States in the 1830s trying to understand what made that young nation work. He was struck by the social equality he saw there - unthinkable in aristocratic Europe - and by what he (beautifully) termed "habits of the heart", the everyday values and customs that created a nation of volunteers and problem solvers who believed that their own self-interest was advanced by helping one another. It was that civic spirit, those "habits of the heart", that de Tocqueville thought made the American democratic experiment work.

Fast forward to 2019 and there's an argument to be made (not necessarily the right argument, but one that can be made) that America has had its soul sapped, and those habits of the heart have given way to a sink-or-swim ethos. From my distant and foreign vantage point, it at least seems that way to me (I can be wrong, I know almost nothing about American society except for the extremes I see on various screens). Donald Trump is explicable but in my opinion not justifiable in a country that still wants to hold the values of its founding. But, since he's in the Oval Office, then 2020 will depend on him. Trump has promised many things, some of them outlandish. All politicians do, but nothing like to the degree he did. 2020 will depend on whether he follows through on them. I think there's a good chance he could win again if by some miracle he is able to hold off the inevitable economic collapse until 2021 (I have long since concluded that Americans are able to overlook having an illiterate inarticulate uncouth pig in the Oval Office if it means dollars in pockets). He'll need to pull out a few more propaganda tricks for his base. Bomb another vacant field in Afghanistan, stage another 'Syrian strike' with the consent of Russia (that 'strike' sure did weaken Assad didn't it?), shake Kim's hand again, all that stuff. But he has a good chance. The Dems' best hope is to block everything he tries to do, but that strategy always runs the risk of back-firing if you make it too obvious. Alternately, the Dems could find within their party an intelligent new political voice with a clear vision of how liberalism can work in the 21st century, but 2 years on from the election they have shown zero signs of doing that. We're still on Biden and Sanders apparently.

If I were an American political strategist, I'd tell Kamala Harris to run. She's not the best politician but she has enough of the skill set and demographic appeal required to defeat Trump in my opinion. We'll see.       
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 06:30:44 PM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2019, 04:58:36 AM »
And just because there are people now who aren't showing civility towards the snatch-grabber in chief doesn't mean the election of a sane, rational person won't restore some. There's a disconnect between the point I was making and you pointing out some current assholery.

I single this out because it's an important part of my general premise.  Maybe not on a case-by-case basis, but generally I think it does mean that the "restoration" will be less complete than it should be.  In other words, it's like the progression in music; we went from not showing Elvis' hips and asking Mick to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together" because <gasp!> we can't have people actually canoodling, to Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke.  It's a constant erosion.  So while under normal conditions, the "restoration" of a sane rational person might get us back to 60% or 70%, maybe it could have beeb 80% or 90% without that sort of entitled (meaning "it's okay when WE do it, but you? You're a bee-got!") stagecraft.  I think attacking Trump that way shows an ignorance of why and how we got Trump to start with, and that's a recipe for repeating the disaster over and over again.

Excellent points.  My problem with Tlaib's 'motherfucker' statement is twofold - the use of "motherfcucker" (wasn't that one of Carlin's 7 words??).  As Stads points out, she's now gone down to Trump's level - she (and by extension the party she represents) can no longer hold their head high that they are 'above' cheap shots/crass comments to their political opponents.  Second, and more alarmingly to me ... this is her first day on the job and she's already made her mind up - as well as speaking for the whole of the Democratic house with the use of the word "we" - that her goal and intent is impeachment.  Da fuq?  Wait a while, sit on some committee's, get some actual facts and knowledge before making your mind up and stating this publicly.  It's one thing to do it as a concerned citizen in her prior 'life', but now that you're a sitting Congresswoman, that's a different bag of toys.

If she was a juror coming into a murder trial with "we gonna hang that honkey", she'd be disqualified immediately.  How can anyone take her seriously when this is her first headline?
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Online MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2019, 06:08:48 AM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 11:53:50 AM by MirrorMask »
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2019, 06:13:35 AM »
I can answer that with one word...

'Murica
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19956
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2019, 10:56:33 AM »
My problem with Tlaib's 'motherfucker' statement is twofold - the use of "motherfcucker" (wasn't that one of Carlin's 7 words??).

While I'm not sure it's appropriate to call any president 'motherfucker', I'm still trying to get used to calling the motherfucker 'president'...

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 2022
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2019, 01:19:58 PM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

There has been a growing disenchantment with the political status-quo amongst the working class in America during my lifetime. Of course, we don't have the social upheaval that we seen in the 60's that resulted in quite a bit of violence and protests, but that involved minorities (due to the civil rights issues that were being addressed at the time) and the younger "hippy" movements of the time.

The feeling of general disgust by the working class in this country can (in my opinion) be traced back to earliest stages of the growing gap in income. Yes, before anyone goes on a tirade about me espousing class warfare, I am in fact espousing class warfare. Numbers don't lie.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2019, 09:03:35 PM »
And just because there are people now who aren't showing civility towards the snatch-grabber in chief doesn't mean the election of a sane, rational person won't restore some. There's a disconnect between the point I was making and you pointing out some current assholery.

I single this out because it's an important part of my general premise.  Maybe not on a case-by-case basis, but generally I think it does mean that the "restoration" will be less complete than it should be.  In other words, it's like the progression in music; we went from not showing Elvis' hips and asking Mick to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together" because <gasp!> we can't have people actually canoodling, to Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke.  It's a constant erosion.  So while under normal conditions, the "restoration" of a sane rational person might get us back to 60% or 70%, maybe it could have beeb 80% or 90% without that sort of entitled (meaning "it's okay when WE do it, but you? You're a bee-got!") stagecraft.  I think attacking Trump that way shows an ignorance of why and how we got Trump to start with, and that's a recipe for repeating the disaster over and over again.

Excellent points.  My problem with Tlaib's 'motherfucker' statement is twofold - the use of "motherfcucker" (wasn't that one of Carlin's 7 words??).  As Stads points out, she's now gone down to Trump's level - she (and by extension the party she represents) can no longer hold their head high that they are 'above' cheap shots/crass comments to their political opponents.  Second, and more alarmingly to me ... this is her first day on the job and she's already made her mind up - as well as speaking for the whole of the Democratic house with the use of the word "we" - that her goal and intent is impeachment.  Da fuq?  Wait a while, sit on some committee's, get some actual facts and knowledge before making your mind up and stating this publicly.  It's one thing to do it as a concerned citizen in her prior 'life', but now that you're a sitting Congresswoman, that's a different bag of toys.

If she was a juror coming into a murder trial with "we gonna hang that honkey", she'd be disqualified immediately.  How can anyone take her seriously when this is her first headline?

Tonight, on the "Identity Politics Awards" - they're also known as "The Golden Globes" - the producer of the film about Gianni Versace called out "We must resist!" at the end of his speech (with upraised fist) and Christian Bale - on receiving his award for "Vice", said, having now played Cheney, he was going to make a career of "playing charisma-free assholes..." and then said something like "how about Mitch McConnell next?".  Then he thanked "Satan" for inspiration.   

Again, I get it, I don't live under a rock.  Trump's taken this to a new level.  But let's not pretend that politics isn't a cesspool, and as much as the Left moralized everything these days, this isn't really a problem of "moralizing". 

(I'm including 2015 because it was a campaign year when the vitriol and nastiness really began in earnest)?

I include this here because I think that's selling Americans short. We been nasty and vitriolic from well before 2015.   From the "Kenyan" nonsense, to the pictures of Bush as Alfred E. Neuman in the crosshairs of a gunsight...  we've been showing our partisanship and immaturity for years now.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 08:13:44 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2019, 09:07:46 PM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

Reagan... Obama... we've got a history of not demanding proven battle (metaphorically) experience in our leadership.  Look, not a knock on him, because as much as I disagree with him politically, I have a tremendous respect for the way Barack Obama rose to the occasion, but he was a charismatic figure that many Americans took a chance on (not, ironically, that much different than Trump if you think about it; not so ironically?  The big loser in both cases was the far more experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2019, 09:11:57 PM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

There has been a growing disenchantment with the political status-quo amongst the working class in America during my lifetime. Of course, we don't have the social upheaval that we seen in the 60's that resulted in quite a bit of violence and protests, but that involved minorities (due to the civil rights issues that were being addressed at the time) and the younger "hippy" movements of the time.

The feeling of general disgust by the working class in this country can (in my opinion) be traced back to earliest stages of the growing gap in income. Yes, before anyone goes on a tirade about me espousing class warfare, I am in fact espousing class warfare. Numbers don't lie.

I'll write more on this tomorrow, but it's NOT the income gap. It's the RESPONSE to the income gap, and the weaponizing of the concept of the income gap.  It's all perception; the income gap itself has little practical application (since the economy is NOT a zero sum game). 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2019, 09:23:06 PM »
Income inequality is worse in the United States than in most other developed nations, for a variety of reasons. Americans pay far more for education and health care, for instance, leaving less disposable income for middle earners. Thatís because the government bears a larger share of such services in Europe and other places. The cost of a 4-year college degree is about 120% of average household income in the United States, for example. In Germany, itís just 6%, because the government subsidizes post-secondary education.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-poor-gap-getting-worse-trump-193238702.html

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2019, 09:57:18 PM »

This is significant, because data shows 'lack of trust' in Hillary was one of the primary motivations for voting against her. Yet as surprising as this may be, Hillary Clinton was far and away the most honest of all the candidates in 2016. Jill Abramson (political correspondent for Britain's Guardian newspaper and a fierce critic of Hillary Clinton over more than 2 decades) wrote a now-famous article in March 2016 titled: This May Shock You: Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

AND

Quote
Few other politicians have been subjected to the level of scrutiny that she has, and when properly analysed the conclusion is that she's as honest as American politicians come. But because she is so disliked by certain actors, and because we are swamped in an unmanageable daily flood of information, it is easy to give the impression that she's unusually untrustworthy, but the facts don't corroborate that.

I have no quibble with your facts, but I'm reluctant to embrace your conclusion.  I feel like there's an element here of "lie by omission" or something similar.   You note yourself her distrust of the media, and while she does score high on sites that fact-check this sort of thing, she has a long history of rumors, circumstances and situations that have never been properly addressed.

When I read your post, the very first thing I thought of is our on-going conversation about media bias - primarily with you, el Barto and me - which often involves el Barto noting that a significant portion of Fox's bias isn't just negative reporting of the left, but in selective omission of stories that either celebrate the left or highlight negative aspects of the right.  I think there's something like that here. 

I regularly criticize her for her lying to investigators regarding her emails (she DID lie; whether the lie was intentional or material is subject to debate) but the real aspect of that is that there is clearly more to the story.

Add to that the notion of "it shouldn't have been that close". She might have told the truth about such things like Uranium One, or the private server, or Benghazi, or other Clinton Foundation controversies... but for some of those things, it's not about "truth" it's about decision-making and what criteria or standards are prioritized in those decisions.  Ironically, it's that same idea of "prioritization" that is a center-piece of much of liberal politics these days (it's a part of BOTH sides' politics, but there are few things on the right that are a social deal-breaker like identity politics).   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2019, 10:00:44 PM »
Income inequality is worse in the United States than in most other developed nations, for a variety of reasons. Americans pay far more for education and health care, for instance, leaving less disposable income for middle earners. Thatís because the government bears a larger share of such services in Europe and other places. The cost of a 4-year college degree is about 120% of average household income in the United States, for example. In Germany, itís just 6%, because the government subsidizes post-secondary education.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-poor-gap-getting-worse-trump-193238702.html

Don't argue that it's worse; I'm arguing that "income inequality" as a bad thing in and of itself is a construct.   When your platform is about "class" it's helpful to have a meaningful "class war" to make your agenda more attractive. Of the things you mention, we can fund many of those things independent of any "crisis" with "income inequality".   (Though I will add that comparing us to many of the European countries in terms of "spend" is foolhardy, because all other variables are NOT equal. There are, for example, no German or Swedish troops helping us defend our southern borders.)

https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-problem

"If the problem we care about is poverty, then the calls to tax the rich and reduce income inequality are misguided."

He also talks about something else I talk about a lot: it's inefficient (economically) to move capital. It's far more efficient (economically) to move the labor where it's needed and can earn higher wages. 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 10:17:09 PM by Stadler »

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 2022
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2019, 10:25:31 PM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

There has been a growing disenchantment with the political status-quo amongst the working class in America during my lifetime. Of course, we don't have the social upheaval that we seen in the 60's that resulted in quite a bit of violence and protests, but that involved minorities (due to the civil rights issues that were being addressed at the time) and the younger "hippy" movements of the time.

The feeling of general disgust by the working class in this country can (in my opinion) be traced back to earliest stages of the growing gap in income. Yes, before anyone goes on a tirade about me espousing class warfare, I am in fact espousing class warfare. Numbers don't lie.

I'll write more on this tomorrow, but it's NOT the income gap. It's the RESPONSE to the income gap, and the weaponizing of the concept of the income gap.  It's all perception; the income gap itself has little practical application (since the economy is NOT a zero sum game).

I'm not at all trying to cut off debate on the subject, but I've seen your past posts about the subject and all that I can say is that we're going to disagree. I have a very high amount of respect for your opinions even when we disagree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority of the posters in this sub-forum are much more articulate and intelligent than I am. However, I've got almost 50 years worth of living near the economic bottom in this country. A great amount of that is due to my extremely poor decisions, and I accept responsibility for that. However, from my perspective the game is rigged and all that I can base that view on is my experience and what the actual numbers tell me.

And to clarify, I've got no problem with someone making a buck. All that I ask is that they give me the dime that I earned, not a damn penny instead.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Online MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2019, 01:16:46 AM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

Reagan... Obama... we've got a history of not demanding proven battle (metaphorically) experience in our leadership.  Look, not a knock on him, because as much as I disagree with him politically, I have a tremendous respect for the way Barack Obama rose to the occasion, but he was a charismatic figure that many Americans took a chance on (not, ironically, that much different than Trump if you think about it; not so ironically?  The big loser in both cases was the far more experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton).

But still, Obama was a politician and a... Illinois? (can't remember) senator. It's not that he was doing a totally different job and said "It's time for a black president, I'll enter politics with my first political campaign ever being for one of the most important offices of the world just because I'm charismatic". He was already a politician, my point was "how come people who has never been in the political loop suddenly are accepted as possible choices for being a president".
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2019, 04:33:24 AM »
Reagan was a Governor, and Obama was a Senator.  They both had political experience.  Not ironic, and both very different from Trump.

Also, the income gap is real, and it has real world implications and effects.  Not everything is a construct, and saying wealth not being a zero sum game is a red herring.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23448
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2019, 05:45:57 AM »
Reagan was a Governor, and Obama was a Senator.  They both had political experience.  Not ironic, and both very different from Trump.

Also, the income gap is real, and it has real world implications and effects.  Not everything is a construct, and saying wealth not being a zero sum game is a red herring.

What really concerns me is the lack of money my generation is able to put away for their later years. I have a number of friends over the age of 30 that still don't have $5K in a 401K plan (or similar account) yet.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2019, 06:15:41 AM »
Reagan was a Governor, and Obama was a Senator.  They both had political experience.  Not ironic, and both very different from Trump.

Also, the income gap is real, and it has real world implications and effects.  Not everything is a construct, and saying wealth not being a zero sum game is a red herring.

What really concerns me is the lack of money my generation is able to put away for their later years. I have a number of friends over the age of 30 that still don't have $5K in a 401K plan (or similar account) yet.
I've read that millennials on average are actually saving more than their parents did at their age. There are certainly some that haven't saved much if anything, which is a problem. But with our 401k/IRA system we have for retirement, they have no one to blame but themselves for that. I don't think that system is necessarily the best, but we have to work with what we have. Short of forcing people to save (which I actually don't think is a terrible idea) what else are we to do?

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2019, 06:32:30 AM »
I've read that millennials on average are actually saving more than their parents did at their age.

My take on that is that pensions were still a thing that some in Gen X and Y had access to.  Secondly, there was always the belief that Social Security would either *be* or supplement their retirement income.  For many of Gen X/Y, it will still might be the case.  Most Millennials (and later) know that won't be the case for them.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2019, 07:49:46 AM »
Reagan was a Governor, and Obama was a Senator.  They both had political experience.  Not ironic, and both very different from Trump.

Also, the income gap is real, and it has real world implications and effects.  Not everything is a construct, and saying wealth not being a zero sum game is a red herring.

What really concerns me is the lack of money my generation is able to put away for their later years. I have a number of friends over the age of 30 that still don't have $5K in a 401K plan (or similar account) yet.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that I am woefully under-represented in terms of "401(k)", but that's PURELY choice.  Other than some food, some clothes, and some shelter ("some" to mean, essentials, not "McDonald's, Nike's, and gated communities") everything else is, at root, a choice.   Doesn't mean that the people are necessarily making "bad" choices, but there shouldn't be chagrin about that state of affairs. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2019, 07:59:20 AM »
As an outsider european, I just hope for a "normal" candidate - a serious and commited person who's a politician who knows how to run stuff.

I remember for example reading about a possible Angelina Jolie candidacy.... when electing non politicians has become a thing? "With Trump", someone might say. And I get the protest vote, the rebellion, the change of the status quo, "breaking the wheel" for all you Game of Thrones fans out there... but at the same time I don't get why going with people who weren't even their class representative at high scool is an option.

When DT needed a new drummer, they didn't go for a random musician who promised to make "DT great again", they went for 1) a drummer, since a drummer was needed, and 2) a world class act since they were at it. When Steve Jobs died, Apple went for an in-house solution, but still, they would have never went for a random kid out of high school who'd have promised to make "Apple great again".

Why, when applying for a job whose description is "being the president of a nation of 260 million people that stretches an entire continent and happens to be the world's leading superpower, and also being directly responsable for the army and the use of nukes" getting someone who's just good at talking and/or charming and/or famous for other stuff is even an option? actually I don't think any human being is qualified for such a mammoth task, that's why you have a staff and the senate and the congress and all the branches of the government, no one can run a nation alone.... still, why is it even an option to handle a superpower to someone who wasn't even a major of a small town will always puzzle me, even understanding the protest and the attempt to make a change. It's absolutely not an option at all to appoint as CEO of a big company someone who hasn't had anything to do with the company, or similar experience - why is it an option for running an entire country, especially a superpower?

There has been a growing disenchantment with the political status-quo amongst the working class in America during my lifetime. Of course, we don't have the social upheaval that we seen in the 60's that resulted in quite a bit of violence and protests, but that involved minorities (due to the civil rights issues that were being addressed at the time) and the younger "hippy" movements of the time.

The feeling of general disgust by the working class in this country can (in my opinion) be traced back to earliest stages of the growing gap in income. Yes, before anyone goes on a tirade about me espousing class warfare, I am in fact espousing class warfare. Numbers don't lie.

I'll write more on this tomorrow, but it's NOT the income gap. It's the RESPONSE to the income gap, and the weaponizing of the concept of the income gap.  It's all perception; the income gap itself has little practical application (since the economy is NOT a zero sum game).

I'm not at all trying to cut off debate on the subject, but I've seen your past posts about the subject and all that I can say is that we're going to disagree. I have a very high amount of respect for your opinions even when we disagree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority of the posters in this sub-forum are much more articulate and intelligent than I am. However, I've got almost 50 years worth of living near the economic bottom in this country. A great amount of that is due to my extremely poor decisions, and I accept responsibility for that. However, from my perspective the game is rigged and all that I can base that view on is my experience and what the actual numbers tell me.

And to clarify, I've got no problem with someone making a buck. All that I ask is that they give me the dime that I earned, not a damn penny instead.

I'm willing to respectfully have the conversation, because I'd like to hear your point of view.   I just don't buy into that notion of "rigged".   It's a political slogan in 9 out of 10 cases.   Some of this might be painful to discuss, some might be a point of view, but in my experience - AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU - many people who feel they deserve that dime aren't looking at the playing field through objective lenses.  Some of what seems to be "rigging" is in fact our own inflated self-worth, and our politicians not understanding what they are doing.  Why anyone is baffled that companies don't want to pay for expensive healthcare is beyond me.  Why anyone is baffled that companies don't want to pay an inflated minimum wage is beyond me.   That doesn't necessarily make them right, but they aren't necessarily wrong either.   

Especially the healthcare one; it's one of the great mysteries to me (economically) that companies are still offering healthcare to their workers.  Do you get your car insurance from your employer?  Your homeowners?  Do they pay your electric bill?  Your phone bill?  Granted, there was a time that it made sense; it was in a company's best interest to have healthy employees, and  employees that didn't miss work.  In our  diverse society, our diverse work force (diverse in the sense of multi-faceted; blue and white collar, in-office and at-home, product and service), that's less of a benefit to the company and is now becoming a burden. 

And I leave you with a question: what does any of that have to do with the fallacy (not that it doesn't exist, but that it means something) of the income gap?   Do you seriously think that if Bill Gates earns $93,000 less per hour that each of his 93,000 employees will automatically earn $1 more per hour?   Yes, some CEOs have famously pulled that PR stunt, but as a general proposition, that's not how it works.   
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 08:19:35 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2019, 08:32:05 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France. 

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2019, 08:39:59 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France. 

I've certainly read the stories of Led Zeppelin's plane circling Heathrow so as to not land until after midnight, so as to avoid adding more day in residence for their totals for the year. I think that sort of flight to other places is a lot more of a worry when you have a small handful of people affected (e.g. major music superstars) versus the entire country's population of $10MM+ earners. Not that there would be none of that type of behavior, but I don't think every rich person in the country is going to up and move overseas. And last I checked the top marginal tax rate got as high as above 90% while Eisenhower was in office and it didn't exactly ruin the country.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23448
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2019, 08:54:19 AM »
Wasn't FDR's marginal tax rate was something like 92% for anyone making over $200K?

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2841
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2019, 09:41:28 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France.

I don't think she's an idiot either. That being said I disagree with 99.9% of everything she said and she scares me for some reason. I really see no difference between her and trump other than age and gender. Both say stupid shit not supported by facts.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23448
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2019, 11:12:47 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France.

I don't think she's an idiot either. That being said I disagree with 99.9% of everything she said and she scares me for some reason. I really see no difference between her and trump other than age and gender. Both say stupid shit not supported by facts.

I bet Ocasio hasn't openly bragged about sexually assaulting other humanbeings, or opened universities to scam people out of money, or set up a bogus cancer charity to funnel money to other shell companies, or used property in NYC to launder money for the Russian mob.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2019, 11:35:35 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France. 

I've certainly read the stories of Led Zeppelin's plane circling Heathrow so as to not land until after midnight, so as to avoid adding more day in residence for their totals for the year. I think that sort of flight to other places is a lot more of a worry when you have a small handful of people affected (e.g. major music superstars) versus the entire country's population of $10MM+ earners. Not that there would be none of that type of behavior, but I don't think every rich person in the country is going to up and move overseas. And last I checked the top marginal tax rate got as high as above 90% while Eisenhower was in office and it didn't exactly ruin the country.

You can bet your portion of the "fair share" that that money WILL be protected. Whether it's tax havens, unrealized stock options, or simply physical relocation, it WILL happen.   I don't know the tax laws well enough myself to give you the ins-and-outs, but with people like John Depp already in France, George Clooney in... I think it's Italy, and others, it's not a pipe dream at all.  The Stones made it work for them ("Exile on Main Street" was recorded during a time of tax exile), as did Elton John (I forget the album; might have been Goodbye Yellow Brick Road).   It takes nothing to schedule a movie shoot in Africa, or schedule that additional leg of the World Tour...  for business folks, in the increasingly global environment, GE was looking at the UK for it's new HQ (before it settled on Boston).  It wouldn't even be a huge change in lifestyle for these executives to have an ulterior motive in how they travel internationally.   

The "tippy-toppies" don't get there because they keep their money in the mattress and blow their spare change on Spotify subscriptions.   

Not really the place, but I also laugh at the phraseology: "fair share".   I would venture to say that other than fire and police, those paying the highest tax brackets are probably using government services the LEAST.  I just point this out in the interest of the "income inequality" discussion, to show that there are several levels on which the idea that "income inequality" is anything other than a means of fomenting discord has merit. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2019, 11:36:24 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France.

I don't think she's an idiot either. That being said I disagree with 99.9% of everything she said and she scares me for some reason. I really see no difference between her and trump other than age and gender. Both say stupid shit not supported by facts.

Because "zealotry" ought to scare any sane person, regardless of where it comes from.   

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27759
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2019, 11:37:00 AM »
The way she reminds me of trump is how she uses social media in a way that politicians haven't before.  Not that they use it the same way, but that they are connecting to their followers in a way that we haven't really seen before.  Trump does it in a way that makes you hate social media and she's doing it in a way that gives you a more insightful view of how she's doing things (I think at least, I don't follow her but from the things I've read).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2019, 11:37:44 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France.

I don't think she's an idiot either. That being said I disagree with 99.9% of everything she said and she scares me for some reason. I really see no difference between her and trump other than age and gender. Both say stupid shit not supported by facts.

I bet Ocasio hasn't openly bragged about sexually assaulting other humanbeings, or opened universities to scam people out of money, or set up a bogus cancer charity to funnel money to other shell companies, or used property in NYC to launder money for the Russian mob.

Give her time, give her time.  Trump didn't do any of those things before the age of 29, either.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2019, 11:39:23 AM »
The way she reminds me of trump is how she uses social media in a way that politicians haven't before.  Not that they use it the same way, but that they are connecting to their followers in a way that we haven't really seen before.  Trump does it in a way that makes you hate social media and she's doing it in a way that gives you a more insightful view of how she's doing things (I think at least, I don't follow her but from the things I've read).

Call me the "old man", but both make me hate social media, because both are using it to short-circuit the hard work that the recipient of the information needs to do to have it be substantive.   Both are presenting their views in soundbite format, with no depth, no substance, and no opportunity for any reasoned debate.   

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12590
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2019, 11:43:18 AM »
https://nypost.com/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-proposes-massive-tax-hike-on-the-wealthy/

Love it.  Awesome.   Welcome to four more years of Donald Trump. Unlike most, I don't think she's an idiot; I think she's pretty smart, just not on economics.  This is more an indication of someone simply being drunk on national power and celebrity.   "Hey someone is listening to me!  I'm going to say something interesting to keep them listening!"

Someone ask Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Brian May, etc. how that worked for Britain.   NYC certainly loved it, as did France. 

I've certainly read the stories of Led Zeppelin's plane circling Heathrow so as to not land until after midnight, so as to avoid adding more day in residence for their totals for the year. I think that sort of flight to other places is a lot more of a worry when you have a small handful of people affected (e.g. major music superstars) versus the entire country's population of $10MM+ earners. Not that there would be none of that type of behavior, but I don't think every rich person in the country is going to up and move overseas. And last I checked the top marginal tax rate got as high as above 90% while Eisenhower was in office and it didn't exactly ruin the country.

You can bet your portion of the "fair share" that that money WILL be protected. Whether it's tax havens, unrealized stock options, or simply physical relocation, it WILL happen.   I don't know the tax laws well enough myself to give you the ins-and-outs, but with people like John Depp already in France, George Clooney in... I think it's Italy, and others, it's not a pipe dream at all.  The Stones made it work for them ("Exile on Main Street" was recorded during a time of tax exile), as did Elton John (I forget the album; might have been Goodbye Yellow Brick Road).   It takes nothing to schedule a movie shoot in Africa, or schedule that additional leg of the World Tour...  for business folks, in the increasingly global environment, GE was looking at the UK for it's new HQ (before it settled on Boston).  It wouldn't even be a huge change in lifestyle for these executives to have an ulterior motive in how they travel internationally.   

The "tippy-toppies" don't get there because they keep their money in the mattress and blow their spare change on Spotify subscriptions.   

Not really the place, but I also laugh at the phraseology: "fair share".   I would venture to say that other than fire and police, those paying the highest tax brackets are probably using government services the LEAST.  I just point this out in the interest of the "income inequality" discussion, to show that there are several levels on which the idea that "income inequality" is anything other than a means of fomenting discord has merit. 

While there are certainly government services that rich people don't use, the ones that they do use (and I would lump military in with police/fire), they get *far* more value out of than others. There's obviously a basic universal value to something like the protection the police provide in terms of your life, but beyond that, the more you have/more you're worth, the more value you get from the police protecting your house/property/bank/etc...
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10498
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 2020 Election Thread
« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2019, 11:46:52 AM »
The way she reminds me of trump is how she uses social media in a way that politicians haven't before.  Not that they use it the same way, but that they are connecting to their followers in a way that we haven't really seen before.  Trump does it in a way that makes you hate social media and she's doing it in a way that gives you a more insightful view of how she's doing things (I think at least, I don't follow her but from the things I've read).

Call me the "old man", but both make me hate social media, because both are using it to short-circuit the hard work that the recipient of the information needs to do to have it be substantive.   Both are presenting their views in soundbite format, with no depth, no substance, and no opportunity for any reasoned debate.

Like the reasoned debates Trump and Hillary had during the last campaign? Come on Stads, no politician ever gives you all the information, just the soundbites that people really want to hear. If there was a neutral fact checker during debates that would be a different thing, but there is not, so people still need to go and check everything politician say. Social media just provides a way for candidate to get their message across in a broader and cheaper way.
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants.