Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Starlord said:

What if we changed 'all citizens' to 'some citizens'?  Asking for a friend.

 

All citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.

 

Hrmm, where have I heard that one...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

All citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.

 

Hrmm, where have I heard that one...?

 

Ok, change 'all people' to 'certain people'.  Also, can we be more specific when we say 'large rock'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

What if we changed 'all citizens' to 'some citizens'?  Asking for a friend.

 

Sounds like a landslide victory.

 

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

 

Ok, change 'all people' to 'certain people'.  Also, can we be more specific when we say 'large rock'?

 

See, even if people would actually ask for details on the 'large rock', we would be in better shape.

 

You'll build a wall HOW long?  How high will it be?  What will keep people from climbing over it?  Where will the money come from?  Why would Mexico pay for it?

 

Silly?  Sure.

 

But "you will get more government benefits and someone else will pay for it with higher taxes" has been the basis of political campaigning for a long time.

 

WHO will be better off?  Why, you and everyone else that I want to vote for me!

 

And who's paying the taxes to cover that?  Why, the Bad Folks - the ones who have more money than they deserve! Not you folks, of course.  Vote for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Sounds like a landslide victory.

 

 

See, even if people would actually ask for details on the 'large rock', we would be in better shape.

 

You'll build a wall HOW long?  How high will it be?  What will keep people from climbing over it?  Where will the money come from?  Why would Mexico pay for it?

 

Silly?  Sure.

 

But "you will get more government benefits and someone else will pay for it with higher taxes" has been the basis of political campaigning for a long time.

 

WHO will be better off?  Why, you and everyone else that I want to vote for me!

 

And who's paying the taxes to cover that?  Why, the Bad Folks - the ones who have more money than they deserve! Not you folks, of course.  Vote for me!

 

I remember in the 2000 campaign when Al Gore showed up on Larry King.

 

This caller points out that Gore had been saying repeatedly for months that his proposed surcharge tax would only affect millionaires. But when the details had finally been made public that week, the tax actually started kicking in at $250,000. The caller was basically asking "What's up with that?"

 

So Gore replied, seriously, that someone who made $250,000 for four years was a millionaire. And Gore looked over at Larry King with a "Please help me expression" on his face.

 

So King said quickly, "That math adds up for me", hit the disconnect button on the call, and immediately went to the next caller so as to not allow the audience time to digest that little exchange.

 

I mean, you could have argued about whether it was proper at that point in time to have a tax surcharge on anyone who made $250,000 per year or not. But actually getting caught being dishonest about when the tax kicked in and then not having any kind of credible response when he was caught in his dishonesty was more than a bit startling.

 

I also found it startling that Larry King so blatantly tried to cover for the candidate rather than allowing a great TV moment to happen as the candidate tried to dig himself out of a hole. But I never watched King enough to know whether his format was always "the friendly interviewer who shields the guest" or whether that particular event was something which was highly unusual.

 

I mean if we want to play math games, by that standard, someone who makes $25,000 per year for forty years is also a millionaire. 🙈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House Republicans pass a non-binding resolution during their conference meeting on Wednesday in support of restoring earmarks. The House GOP's 102-84 vote comes as Democrats gear up to revive the practice, which allows members to secure federal funding for specific projects.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/543618-house-republicans-vote-to-support-earmarks

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I remember in the 2000 campaign when Al Gore showed up on Larry King.

 

This caller points out that Gore had been saying repeatedly for months that his proposed surcharge tax would only affect millionaires. But when the details had finally been made public that week, the tax actually started kicking in at $250,000. The caller was basically asking "What's up with that?"

 

So Gore replied, seriously, that someone who made $250,000 for four years was a millionaire. And Gore looked over at Larry King with a "Please help me expression" on his face.

 

So King said quickly, "That math adds up for me", hit the disconnect button on the call, and immediately went to the next caller so as to not allow the audience time to digest that little exchange.

 

I mean, you could have argued about whether it was proper at that point in time to have a tax surcharge on anyone who made $250,000 per year or not. But actually getting caught being dishonest about when the tax kicked in and then not having any kind of credible response when he was caught in his dishonesty was more than a bit startling.

 

I also found it startling that Larry King so blatantly tried to cover for the candidate rather than allowing a great TV moment to happen as the candidate tried to dig himself out of a hole. But I never watched King enough to know whether his format was always "the friendly interviewer who shields the guest" or whether that particular event was something which was highly unusual.

 

I mean if we want to play math games, by that standard, someone who makes $25,000 per year for forty years is also a millionaire. 🙈

 

I've always thought a millionaire HAD $1 million.  The problem is that we tend to conflate "income", which we tax, with "wealth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I remember in the 2000 campaign when Al Gore showed up on Larry King.

 

This caller points out that Gore had been saying repeatedly for months that his proposed surcharge tax would only affect millionaires. But when the details had finally been made public that week, the tax actually started kicking in at $250,000. The caller was basically asking "What's up with that?"

 

So Gore replied, seriously, that someone who made $250,000 for four years was a millionaire. And Gore looked over at Larry King with a "Please help me expression" on his face.

 

So King said quickly, "That math adds up for me", hit the disconnect button on the call, and immediately went to the next caller so as to not allow the audience time to digest that little exchange.

 

I mean, you could have argued about whether it was proper at that point in time to have a tax surcharge on anyone who made $250,000 per year or not. But actually getting caught being dishonest about when the tax kicked in and then not having any kind of credible response when he was caught in his dishonesty was more than a bit startling.

 

I also found it startling that Larry King so blatantly tried to cover for the candidate rather than allowing a great TV moment to happen as the candidate tried to dig himself out of a hole. But I never watched King enough to know whether his format was always "the friendly interviewer who shields the guest" or whether that particular event was something which was highly unusual.

 

I mean if we want to play math games, by that standard, someone who makes $25,000 per year for forty years is also a millionaire. 🙈

 

Whereas to me, to a large extent that's splitting hairs.

 

First:  the definition of a millionaire is, I believe, simply having a net worth of $1M+.  It is NOT someone making $1M+ per year.  Realize:  this includes your house.  It's not that high a bar at this point.  According to Credit Suisse, over 20 million US households technically qualify.

 

Gore's statement is an exaggeration, by and large, but the probability that someone making $250K, particularly in 2000, *was* a millionaire would be VERY high.  First, let's note that inflation calculators show $250K in 2000 would be about $380-390K today.  That's in the top 2%.

 

Then, unless you're pretty much signing your first pro contract after being picked in the first round in the NFL or NBA, you almost certainly didn't just suddenly start making this kind of money in a vacuum.  Even major promotions rarely come with more than about 15% raises.  So most of the time, the person taking home this kind of income has been doing so for multiple years.  Not AS much, maybe, but a very good chunk of it.  And unless they've been frittering it away...their net worth will comfortably pass the $1M mark.

 

OTOH, simply looking at income has issues.  $200K per year in New York City probably has MUCH less discretionary spending in it than $200K per year in Denver.  In many cases, too, in the early years, student loan debts can siphon out LARGE chunks of that as well. 

 

So, yeah, Gore wasn't completely correct, but the caller was WAY off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Gore was explicitly often saying "someone who makes a million dollars" as well as at other times saying "millionaires" (I should have made that point more clear in my initial post). So I would place the blame directly on Gore rather than placing any blame on misunderstanding on the part of Gore's audience.

 

And again, we could discuss whether a tax surcharge on someone making $250,000 or more would have been appropriate fiscal policy at the time.

 

But Gore was deliberately being misleading about what he was proposing, and who it would be taxing, in order to generate additional public support for his proposal.

 

I'll admit to being an idealist.

 

I think that being honest with the voters about what you propose to do and why you think that's a good idea is fantastic.

 

And that being intentionally dishonest about what you're proposing to do in order to gather support for your proposals is reprehensible behavior. And I don't give someone a pass on their behavior just because I might like a policy proposal. Or give a pass on bad behavior because I detest his political opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

During the past month, the Cicis corporate headquarters team has been working on a successful exit from Chapter 11 proceedings. As a result of the extraordinary efforts of many, we have emerged stronger than ever with an improved foundation and capital structure.

 

Today’s Cicis news also includes confirmation of a new ownership team which is very positive new for the brand and our loyal guests. D&G Investors, the new ownership company, brings a combined 60-plus years of successful restaurant experience with many different brands, totaling ownership and operations of more than 200 restaurants combined. We are excited about this new partnership and the benefits to our company.

 

But in the end, the most important thing is YOU. Your unwavering loyalty and support have been remarkable throughout this process and drives our ambition to keep providing our unmistakable “Best Pizza Value Anywhere” experience.  In fact, in early-February, when we first announced our restructuring, the outpouring of support was incredible. Thank you for sharing your passion for Cicis with us.  

 

As always, I want to reassure you that there is no impact on our restaurants’ operations. It is business as usual for us. We greatly appreciate you as a guest and will continue to provide you with the Cicis unlimited pizza experience you have come to know and love.

 

On behalf of the entire Cicis family, thank you again for your continued support and we look forward to serving you again soon.

 

Sincerely,

Jeff Hetsel, President and COO, Cicis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • A Rescue Plan for Black America (Ep. 453) - Freakonomics ...

    freakonomics.com/podcast/frbc-charles-blow

    Welcome to the latest installment of the Freakonomics Radio Book Club, in which we interview an author and hear excerpts from the book. Today’s author is Charles M. Blow, an op-ed columnist at The New York Times. BLOW: Hello, hello, hello. And his new book is a manifesto.

  • Charles Blow Archives - Freakonomics Freakonomics

    freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/charles-blow

    New York Times columnist Charles Blow argues that white supremacy in America will never fully recede, and that it’s time for Black people to do something radical about it. In The Devil You Know: A Black Power Manifesto, he urges a “reverse migration” to the South to consolidate political power and create a region where it’s safe to be Black.

    -------------

    One of these should work. Freakonomics interviews NY Times columnist Charles Blow about his new book, which suggests a radical plan for Black Americans to counter the grip of institutionalized white supremacy. In brief: Reverse the "Great Migration" of the 1920s-30s, which saw lots of Black people leave the South in hopes the North would be better. It wasn't, and isn't. But if enough Black people move to the states that already have relatively high proportions of Black citizens, they can become the voting majority in those states and take over the state governments. This is important because, he argues, much of the machinery of Black suppression operates at the state level: voter suppression, mass incarceration, etc. City governments can't do much, since state governments can block anything they try. Blow thinks it might be possible to seize as many as 7 state governments -- providing leverage at the national level, for further change.

     

    I don't know if this is possible -- and Blow admits it's a generational project. But it has the advantage of not resting on the goodness of white Americans. It is raw power politics, not spiritual enlightenment.

     

    Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Trump lawyer uses "no reasonable person defense" against pending lawsuit.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.htm

 

 

How did this woman even pass the bar exam?

 

It was graded by Rudy Giuliani?

 

EDIT:  note that this is also fundamentally throwing the vast majority of Trump's supporters under the bus, essentially calling them idiots by implication...because they DID (and some continue to) believe it.  So they're obviously naive, clueless gits for buying her spewage.

 

Hey, I might think that's true...but I'm not on her/their side.  She's supposed to be.  But, hey, the #1 most practiced Trumpian maneuver is throwing others under buses, so this shouldn't be surprising in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Hey, I might think that's true...but I'm not on her/their side.  She's supposed to be.  But, hey, the #1 most practiced Trumpian maneuver is throwing others under buses, so this shouldn't be surprising in the slightest.

 

I don't think they'll be upset.  Because the game to the 'mood of the trolls', the ones who are pushing this stuff the hardest, is 'do whatever it takes to win the war'.

 

That's the thing here.  People who are apologizing for those people among their own party don't understand that those people are legitimately trying to start a civil war and to suck them into it.  There's no concept of fair play or running a shared country, there never was.  It's them 'destroying the enemy at any cost', and if we dare treat them anywhere the same it's "see?  they are oppressing US!  now we 'have to must gotta' fight back". 

 

And unfortunately those vocal voices are the ones their politicians are speaking to and kowtowing to.

 

Any concept of trying to run the country isn't as important.  Any concept of trying to share the country isn't as important.

 

This behavior might stem from evangelical thought that literally the entire world is the Devil.  Literally everything not from the Bible is the Enemy.

 

And yes I still get into arguments with friends over basic facts and details.  At least one of them is interested in improving things overall and we can agree on 'general direction', but wholly has bought into Trumpian beliefs.

 

1 minute ago, Matt the Bruins said:

I saw elsewhere on the internet someone remark that one of the hardest things to do in fraud cases is establish malicious intent, and Powell's lawyers are doing so as their defense strategy.

 

I was literally fighting not to yell at one of my friends when Trump did this by confessing why he fired Comey.

 

They are literally -that- willing to ignore what he says when it suits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...