Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Nov 13, 2018.
Whats a tax cut? Oh do enlighten me.
If you give a tax cut to the poor they'll probably spend it. That's good.
Rich will probably invest it often offshore it share buybacks.
If you cared about tax cuts that work better make the 1st 5k or 10k tax free.
It's more about bribing your target voters though hence tax cuts tend to be top heavy.
Bottom heavy tax rates tend to end in revolution or some foreigners push your poo in as money is short (Rome, Byzantium, France, Russia etc).
Here's a link for you, my non-googling friend.
Amazon pulling out does not mean NY now has $3 billion more to "hire out more teachers" or "fix [their] subways." You know this, of course. AOC probably forgot that she knew this too, but, she still said what she said.
I just don't see her as being a net positive for the Democrats. I think she helps the GOP more than hurts them on a national level, honestly.
Then again... Is it really a bad thing, long-term, to be a negative for one of two established political parties if it means you're making strides towards ending the two political party system?
What I mean by that is that while I know we're having fun with each other and I'm taking some jabs at AOC, I do have to give her credit. This country would be substantially better off with 4 or 5 political parties than just 2, and the only way we get there is for one side to finally say "screw it" and take the plunge. I could see AOC and her more progressive buds getting fed up with the establishment and being the ones that have the courage to actually do that. Whatever I think about her particular stances on issues, if she could help break the two party gridlock some day, then she goes down as one of the greatest Americans of all time, in my book.
No, mostly a proportional system for all candidates above 15%. Republicans have a lot of winner take all states in the primary but not democrats.
So, can you convince me your concern trolling about how the Squad are bad politicians isn't just a dishonest way of saying you don't agree with their politics? I understand if you don't want to be drawn into a political argument, but claiming that AOC isn't a skilled politician is absurd. Even the liberal centrists she terrorizes acknowledge that she is a highly skilled politician.
Like, the flip side of this is that I will freely acknowledge that Mitch McConnell is a very skilled politician. His politics are, frankly, evil and in a properly-run state he'd be wearing a bright orange uniform, not the second or third most powerful man in the country, but he's a skilled politician.
Has there been any updates on the situation in Kentucky? Any more indications that he's going to punt the election to the House?
I think it's 99% ego
These piece seems to imply that, contra expectations, enough Kentucky Republicans in the legislature are decent human beings that he might not get away with it.
Someone mentioned that they thought she was going to be the Democrats candidate in a future presidential election and I think that is highly unlikely (frankly, I'd use your word of absurd). I won't give anyone credit for being a skilled politician until they get elected twice. I'm certainly not going to call Trump a skilled politician just because he duped us into electing him once.
She might grow into a skilled politician, but for right now I'm not ready to call her that. Skilled Democratic politicians shouldn't become rallying cries for the right - they should siphon off support from the right.
Even if we don't agree does my explanation clarify my position a bit?
Your country shouldn't be hopelessly polarised, such that just that mere party affiliation is enough to make people vote to make their lives quantifiably worse, but there you are.
That has nothing to do with "skill" and everything to do with Republicans. Anyone with name recognition who is a Democrat is automatically a "rallying cry for the right," because the Republican/right position has devolved to pure animal hatred for anyone "not on their side." The whole "yeah, Trump will probably burn the country down around my ears, but the lib'ruls will suffer more so I'll vote for him" response demonstrates exactly why your claim is baseless.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here perhaps but speaking only for myself I will tell you that my vote is very much available to the Democrats in 2020 depending on who they nominate and there are at least a few candidates in their field that I'd even donate time, money, and resources to helping. With that said I still need to consider my own family and community, and I don't think some of the front runners would be very good for either.
Sure man...so you'll end up voting Trump, because he's been so good. At least he really punishes the enemy, AmIRite?
If you lived in an area that was reliant on government jobs, you probably wouldn't want to vote for a (legitimate) small government conservative who campaigned on wanting to slash those government jobs, right? I would think that voting for such a candidate would pretty clearly be against your self interests. Can we agree with that?
Well I live in an area that is reliant on insurance jobs. Why would I support a candidate who wants to do away with that industry?
I grew up in a defense contractor company town, and I'm well aware of "hold your nose" Republicans who believe that the GOP is the party of defense spending so will vote for them no matter what. However, those days are gone here. It's still in large part the same company town that it was, but the local Republicans no longer bother with defense spending arguments. They just spew an ever more venomous hatred for all but themselves.
It basically confirms that your problem with her is that she's not a Republican and doesn't appeal to Republicans.
Who, out of curiosity?
Dirty pool man. When a Republican makes that claim they are just trying to counter the "hate all non-Republicans" tar that they are being brushed with. The claim is about a purely hypothetical "Democrat." Asking for specific names is a low blow.
But those days aren't long gone for me, so again, if I'm voting in self interest, it would be very challenging to support Sanders or Warren.
I'd vote for Biden over Trump for sure. I believe that out of the three front runners he is the most likely to try to find reasonably accommodating compromises for the largest swathe of the population. Also Obama wasn't a bad president. I didnt like a few things he did but he was up against unprecedented obstruction and never given a chance.
To be completely honest I haven't found much point in listening to many other than he, Sanders, and Warren at this point as who knows who the candidate will be and I cant vote in the primary anyway. That Buttieg fellow is starting to get on my radar but I dont know enough about him yet to say if I'd vote for him.
You missed the point of the "those days are gone." It isn't that the defense contractor company town aspect has changed. The old "hold your nose" Republicans voted out of self interest, but they knew the GOP stank to high heaven. The current Republicans can't even explain how the GOP is better for their self interests, they just vote GOP out of unrestrained hatred for the "enemy." The GOP doesn't even bother talking about defense spending, they just spew venom at "the others."
Buttigieg is polling nationally at 7%. Obviously he isn't going to be the nomination, regardless of the clownship at Cnn, NBC etc.
Yeah, the fact that you would vote for Biden to preserve the revenue streams from the (health? I assume) insurance industry's extortion of Americans is why I so bitterly oppose him.
Separate names with a comma.