2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Lexicus
Deity
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Well, no, it actually avoids the question I think. Under the unique circumstance of Hitler v Stalin I'd be organizing a write in campaign for Bugs myself, and would be willing to make the case that he should be voted for because he might actually win. But under the usual circumstance where both candidates that have a shot have various good and bad points, and the outcome is in doubt, voting third party rather than weighing out the better potential winner, or at least the less bad potential winner, is a whole different thing.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
You didn't answer my question. What are they actually doing to ensure their taxes go up? The Democratic politicians they've supported in the past have not raised their taxes, nor indicated a willingness to raise their taxes, so that's a bad answer.
It's easy for Warren Buffet to say when asked that he thinks he should pay more taxes. But is he out there campaigning for it? He has the money to do so. I'm not seeing it.
Actually it's not to me. If I dislike both candidates enough that I can't vote for them, I don't want to help either win.
I don't see how much clearer I can be.
And in all fairness, If I dislike both candidates enough that I can't vote for them, why I should believe anybody else that tells me I'm mistaken. It's kind of like my signature.
Last edited:
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
That's clear enough. Beyond some threshold of "badness" you'd rather that your vote not have any affect than have it affect the outcome (which is going to be one of them elected). I got thrown a bit by the Hitler v Stalin example because it was unrealistically extreme, I thought, but that's on me. Technically, I fully agree with your position, I just think that my threshold of badness is markedly higher. I supported Kerry, and Hillary Clinton...not because I thought of either of them as really good.
My campaigning for Obama in 2012 didn't really originate out of thinking he was particularly good either, since I had really paid very little attention to him at that point. By election day I was convinced he was a really great president, and I still am, but initially it was just "Mitt Romney! Are you kidding me?" If Romney had been running against Hitler I'd have wrote in for Stalin. It's a scary statement on Trump that I'm now seeing Romney as "not all that bad."
Berzerker
Deity
I did answer, they've been supporting Democrats. Obama even named his proposed tax hike after Buffet. Now one of them is running for President as an independent. Bloomberg sat out '16 to benefit Hillary and Steyers has spent a small fortune attacking Trump. Now I dont know if Hillary wanted to increase taxes on the rich but Obama did. How do you accuse these people of opposing tax increases when they've been funding the campaigns of people who want to raise taxes on the rich?
Berzerker
Deity
Her ignorance about that only accounts for about 1% of my dislike for her. But then I wouldn't vote for another Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton. I don't believe in dynasties.
But yeah, I must be getting senile, I saw that joke in another thread and thought it was clever then instantly forgot it.
But yeah, I must be getting senile, I saw that joke in another thread and thought it was clever then instantly forgot it.
Lexicus
Deity
Woosh, whatever that was went right over my head.
Buttery males = but her emails
Basically just mocking you for believing that Hillary Clinton was anywhere near as distasteful as the completely incompetent, ignorant sexual assaulter and serial fraudster who ran a campaign of racism and promised to commit war crimes on the campaign trail.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
That's sort of missing the point. There is a very real question about people who hate Hillary too much to vote for her, in that they might actually hate a long term constructed image that really has very little to do with her at all...and buttery males may just be about 1% of that constructed image.
I look at my evolution during the 2012 campaign on Obama. Prior to 2012 I was at best a recently reformed Republican, living in a Republican stronghold and saturated with conservative leaning media with occasional doses of outright echo chamber. The first time I opened my mouth in support of Obama I got buried in his vast "sin list," all of which consisted of things I had heard many times before and never particularly questioned. Not that I had particularly believed them either, I just never had any reason to really examine them. Over time, with sufficient research, I found that at least 90% of the pixels in my image of Obama had appeared through repetition, but had no source in reality.
The few pixels that proved to be real, plus many that I found through the course of the campaign, made an image that wasn't perfect, but it sure had very little resemblance to what I had started with.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I already told you. They haven't been funding people who want to raise taxes on the rich, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't raised taxes on the rich. Oh Obama named a tax after Warren Buffet? Great. Did he pass that tax, or was it just hot air?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think the better question is why, despite people like Buffet funding people like Obama who I really do believe would have increased taxes on the rich if he could have, the people who AREN'T rich are so committed to obstructing such taxes that Obama and by extension Buffet can't get it done?
Berzerker
Deity
Obama named his tax on the rich for Buffet. Why would he do that if he didn't have Buffet's blessing?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-obama-tax-hikes-study-20161104-story.html
Obama and Clinton supported higher taxes on the rich
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-obama-tax-hikes-study-20161104-story.html
Obama and Clinton supported higher taxes on the rich
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Obama tax hikes on the rich didn't hurt economy, or the rich
Tells you all you need to know. This wasn't a tax increase targeted at billionaires, because they weren't any worse off for it.
The simple answer to that for me is no. And I think I know myself better than you do. (probably anyway)
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
- Status
