2024 US Presidential Election Watch Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinda biased. I don't love the role propaganda is thought to play there. It implies there's no legitimate issue anyone could take with institutions or legitimate ethical/observational disagreement with positions of legacy media. Not valid, imo.
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. Institutions can and do fail people all the time. All hierarchy is flawed. I would say too it’s a larger problem when the last half dozen years have also seen, for the first time, majorities of people say they don’t trust each other, as individuals, in America. That points to some sort of larger disconnect. There are other factors too, loss of community orgs, siloing via social media. And it’s true that a big blow to institutional trust was the Iraq War. But the man who is capitalizing on that lack of institutional trust (Trump) was pro Iraq War and surrounds himself with people who helped start it.
 
That points to some sort of larger disconnect. There are other factors too, loss of community orgs, siloing via social medi
Personally believe Covid restrictions accelerated a long-term decline in informal friendship networks that were simply presumed to always exist(even though various tech innovations from car to train have been tearing away at them for decades). These have collapsed for many and that itself makes it much more difficult to reform(one friend turns into 5 via introduction)

Complementing this was that 2020 was similarly a time in which new norms seemed briefly ascendant, supported by power structures in corporations, that were never fully embraced by the actual population. End result was a loss of trust that real opinions aired would be forgiven if unpopular.

Pretty obvious some new ways of thinking failed to resonate and invited hostility in opposition.
 
Besides the exodus of high net worth people, suppose you could get enough to stay to enforce it—if someone’s stock portfolio goes from $90 to $110m in a year, what do you do? Take 10% of the stocks? What if it goes down the next year to $70m? Does the government give them the money back? Stocks go up and down.

Who is in my family? I have an uncle I haven’t seen in probably 20 years. And suppose that uncle gets over the cap, who pays? Do I have to pay because I’m related?

What if it’s a closely-held corporation? Is the government going to take 50% of ownership if the people running it do a good job?

A wealth tax is not the answer.
Those are the details that need to be worked out. If folks want to leave, let them go and lose their US citizenship and any assets left behind in the US and US markets. Yes markets do go up and down. Currently we deal with that at year end for tax purposes. A similar approach could be applied here. Family? We deal with that already. It just needs a clear definition. If a closely held corporation is valued at $500 million among 3 owners, then the solution is to add more owners who are unrelated (employees?). Remember the goal is to push wealth and it benefits "down" to more people. My choice of $100 million is a bit arbitrary, but that seems like a sufficient amount to pretty much do what ever one wants in life.
 
In the US it would take a constitutional amendment or another revolution to do that.
I don't think so. It would just take a law passed by congress and not ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Who other than the top 10% of USians would object? Is $100 million not enough for you?
 
People quit playing mmos if there is no more progression. They'll try to level on exponential curves, tho.

Some of them will even do it, and they'll teach something in the doing it.
 
And the voter of Republicans didn't believe that the Democratic Party is here to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, they think the Democratic Party is helping thieves and rapists escape the consequences of crime by "using gender identity"
(For example, a man raped a woman and said "I considers my identify as female" to get rid of criminal liability, and it is (they said) really happened, the media and Democratic Party suppress the victim and said it is a fake news to shut their mouth.)
And helping the drug companies selling their transgender medical services.
It is a waste of taxpayer money to create indelible consequences on the body of minor, so these people will have to rely on the services of these drug companies in their whole life and the drug companies will be rich.

Do trans women not go to jail or something?

Does v coding not exist in your mind

edit:

The moral panic over trans people and kids being able to transition both socially and in limited cases, medically, is insane and I'm sick and tired of being told these people have "valid concerns" about it and that they aren't coming from a place of anti-trans animus or ignorance, no one would bat an eyelid if a cis kid was put on hormones or hormone blockers because being cis isn't treated like a disease or a moral failing or a mental illness but being trans is seen as all three, even by those that claim to be allies but jettison us as soon as the going get's tough.
 
Last edited:
Then you ignored it in the post while doing the illustration. That skews the numbers completely.
No. You just assumed the point was about "people with low income won't have enough to live" when I specifically repeated that it was to illustrate the difference in how flat tax affect people with different income.
I also repeated several times the point about wealth concentration. You simply ignored what I actually said.
You aren't going to change the number of people with lots of money just by taxing, and trying to just *take* it, um.. no. Very bad idea.
It's not about "the number of people with lots of money", it's about "how much money is concentrated in the hand of few people". Wealth redistribution allows :
1) To get enough money for the state to function.
2) Prevent money concentration.
I don't want people taking what isn't theirs and giving it to others. Thievery.

I also said I don't have the answers to the wealth inequalities. A FAIR tax is a start. Fair wages also needed.
You don't have the answers, but you wish to prevent the system which has been proved to work ?
(because ALL the best societies on Earth have progressive taxes, while the ones with flat taxes are either "cheating" through huge resource exploitation, like petrol, or are oppressive s***holes)
Because you know, at some point when you want two contradictory things you have to decide on which one is more important.
So what is more important to you, that billionnaires are taxed like lower class Joe or that they don't hold all the wealth in their hands ?
I'd also like to see larger bonus to workers if the company has a good year (workers not just management)
(rather than it all going to the upper lvl ones)

However, it comes back to "who decides". How much makes a good year? How much should the CEO get compared to a workerbee?
etc.
"who decides" is the people. That's the point of a democracy. The very reason rich people can get rich (and that money exists to begin with) is that there is a functionning society for them to benefit from. You can't really "sell" anything and get money out of it, if there isn't laws about trade, infrastructure allowing trade, working laws so that you can pay people to do things for you, law enforcement to protect your business and person, and so on.
 
It's not true.
His insults to men are more vicious than his obvious insults to women. If you think about it this way, you should think that he is actually quite a gentleman towards women, but it is not gentleman.

And the voter of Republicans didn't believe that the Democratic Party is here to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, they think the Democratic Party is helping thieves and rapists escape the consequences of crime by "using gender identity"
(For example, a man raped a woman and said "I considers my identify as female" to get rid of criminal liability, and it is (they said) really happened, the media and Democratic Party suppress the victim and said it is a fake news to shut their mouth.)
And helping the drug companies selling their transgender medical services.
It is a waste of taxpayer money to create indelible consequences on the body of minor, so these people will have to rely on the services of these drug companies in their whole life and the drug companies will be rich.

At last, let me make a statement:
If the media and Democratic Party had been suppress the victim by their power, it is a way of speech control in a dictatorship, just like how China control the public opinion.
I never went to the US, so I never investigate about did it actually happened, this is all hearsay from their social media.
But I can ensure the fired FEMA employee in North Carolina is totally the way used by authoritarian countries to suppress dissent, and it must be instructions from superiors will not be carried out by subordinates without authorization.
This is some real brain worm stuff my friend.
 
ok, I still dunno what it means.



In the US it would take a constitutional amendment or another revolution to do that.



A "wealth tax" is not the answer. see below:



exactly. Family turns into a corporation. All assets to the corp. Now what?
Stocks: worthless paper until actually sold. See above.
Actual land: again, until sold, yes it has value, but how much?

Who tracks all the above? Who implements it? Oh, more government employees. We gots too many of them already.

oh, and what "value" do the people who's stuff you're taking get? A wealth tax is another fancy name for stealing.
So, nope.

This kind of discussion really will go nowhere. I won't convince you to change your position, and you won't change mine.
(however, sometimes when blathering on about things, a true nugget does just pop up. Reality is weird like that) :)
Yea fiduciary and corporate law need a massive reform if you want to save the planet from these enemies of humanity. The US have trillions of dollars being hidden away to avoid taxation. Fiduciary and corporate law literally enforces this type of tax dodging. The enemies are the greedy fudgs who made bribery legal in the US, starting back in the 70s.

"Land reform" is code for revolution in this case. Your ignorance of economics, Marxist economics, and their historical implications is keeping you ignorant of how the world is actually working today. All profit by an owner is theft. It is extracting labor from workers and not paying them their due compensation. You will never own the factory, stop shilling for people who steal food from your families.
 
"Land reform" is code for revolution in this case.
I did have it right. ;)

But that is the specific word for the next stop in my order of events, should the couch warmers not be provided.
 
"Land reform" is code for revolution in this case. Your ignorance of economics, Marxist economics, and their historical implications is keeping you ignorant of how the world is actually working today. All profit by an owner is theft. It is extracting labor from workers and not paying them their due compensation. You will never own the factory, stop shilling for people who steal food from your families.

Yeah can you please answer that property question I gave you some days ago regarding how capitalism is not markets? It will be difficult for any of to abandon capitalism unless you enlighten us.
 
Note he has faced numerous charges of sexual assault, has said he would "protect women whether they like it or not", notoriously said "when you're a star, you can do anything" (before saying some extremely inappropriate stuff)
Even if there is a former president or candidate who commits sexual assault or various crimes
Those guys won't be charged.
This is to prevent the president in power controlling elections by falsely accusing his rivals.
Even if Trump does, this behavior is obviously an abuse of power by the government.

But I don't think he has.
Purely my personal opinion.
Because these candidate of president are (usually) very careful
Even if they are not careful, their staff will be careful.
If these candidate have criminal records that may be detrimental to the election, they can let an agent or puppet run the election for him.
Accusing Trump of sexual assault is as unreasonable as Republicans accusing Biden of being a sexual assault criminal.
Even if their "friends" were sexually assaulted, these politicians themselves would not be involved.
At least Trump only admitted that he paid hush money, but he did not admit that he had any sexual relations with those woman.
If he paid hush money, he can insist on his legitimacy even if he had sexual assault.
Because the woman take his hush money and accusing Trump, it is close to they are blackmailing Trump.
Anyway, the people who voted for him don’t believe that he didn’t commit sexual assault too.
He can be just admit it but he don't.

Also, the new White House Staff don't seem to be worried that they will be sexually assaulted.

Do trans women not go to jail or something?

Does v coding not exist in your mind

edit:

The moral panic over trans people and kids being able to transition both socially and in limited cases, medically, is insane and I'm sick and tired of being told these people have "valid concerns" about it and that they aren't coming from a place of anti-trans animus or ignorance, no one would bat an eyelid if a cis kid was put on hormones or hormone blockers because being cis isn't treated like a disease or a moral failing or a mental illness but being trans is seen as all three, even by those that claim to be allies but jettison us as soon as the going get's tough.
Oh yeah, I don't those terms about v-coding, but I know some of the people will take hormones medicine or doing a surgery for sex changing.
But I don't see those republicans and Trump voter is going to hate those transgender.
If it is a illusion they made in the internet, their workers will be more than the Chinese Communist Party I think. Quite impossible.

Do you realize you're talking to a trans minor? Also I don't think many regions in the USA use taxpayer money for gender affirming care.
I can't understand why you think this is reasonable.
When I first listened to them(the Trump voters), I thought the government paying for transgender surgeries was just an exaggeration from Trump voters.
Because it sounds to me like if this really happened, the US government would be really sick (even if it just happened few times)
But if Democrats feel like you, though that they shouldn't care about those few money.

I will begin to understand why Americans like the slogan "America First"... actually I was though it just a meaningless gimmick.

Maybe some wealthy people should set up a charity fund to provide convenience for who want to be a transgender people.
But the government shouldn't spend a penny on this

Let me make it clear that money should be given to those who “need” it, not to those who “want" it
Gender transition is obviously not a "need", but closer to a "luxury".
Even if someone needs it, they should pay in their own pocket
Especially when inflation occurs, poor people will hate it.
Those who are suffering from life, those who are facing the crisis because of money, those who are fighting hard for the people they care, those who abide by the law and deserve praise, even among transgender people there may be poor people....
Why don't they take the money first?

If the Democratic Party has such a mentality like this and would rather provide transgender subsidized services than give that money to the poor...
The poor will only think that those Democrats are playing the game of the rich and treat them as abandoned fools.
But maybe Americans are much richer than I thought, so maybe being poor isn't really that painful.
After all, I have only experienced my own poverty, not American poverty.
But I don’t think it’s okay to spend money in this way, although it’s not a lot of money.

The Democrats don't really do the media suppression thing, or not as much as the Republicans do so. The very red state of Florida has banned or tried to ban numerous books such as Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and Toni Morrison's Beloved and Louisiana tried passing a law making it so every classroom had to have the Ten Commandments in them.
Actually I don't know what book it is.
But if you said it is real, It is not suppression, it just a censorship.

The suppression is
If you read the book, the bureaucracy will give you trouble or hire the underworld to attack you.
If you agree with the book, you will go to jail.
Go to your school, go to your work place and send a lot of complaint letter and tell the boss to fire you although you do nothing wrong.
Go to your home and find your family for harassment.
Taking your photo for creating fake news.
Said you are a bad people in the television, if anyone help you, they are betraying the value of the Party and Country.
And you even not allow to say you don't want to ban the book.

I can't give all examples of it, actually it is more way to do if it is suppression, and it wouldn't be just banned the books.

Also note that Trump's Project 2025 (don't say the Heritage Project and Trump are on different camps of the right, Trump has worked with numerous members of the Heritage Project in the past) will not only ban abortion nationwide and increase the effects of climate change, it will also make America more isolationist and less of a semi-benevolent force (note I don't say the USA has been always a good force in global politics... there are numerous examples of nations America has ruined) that has been helping NATO and the UN.
I read news everyday.
He said Ukraine and Taiwan take the US money and steal their job first, and next day said he will help Ukraine and Taiwan, and the third day is he won't send any army to there, and the next day will be Taiwan and Japan must pay more money to US, and next next day ...well, I tired to write it all.
He also changed his statement many times on the issue of abortion, and the last version is it belongs to the state government decision
I don't know how many people notice that.

And I heard all what actually Trump wants, all the nonsense this guy talks is basically a "talking skill"
to intimidate those allies pay the money,
to drop the Taiwan financial market and let the money go back to US
those China and India didn't go to comply with the climate agreement...
something like that.
I don't know how many people in US noticed that "talking skill" of it
but actually other country use "talking skill" too, just they talk much beautiful than Trump and it is difficult to know they are intimidate their allies and playing tricks too.

And another cruel thing is if you don't bring back the industrial to the West, global warming will be much more dangers.
Although you don't produce the dirty industrial in your country, the dirty industrial will build in the countries with bad regulations and corruption.
The dirty industrial always needed, and the corruption countries will make those factory produce the pollution ineffectively for making more money, because if there are any problem on it, the dictator can shut our mouth.
And the dirty industrial will progress and nothing can stop....because you western will buy those product made by dirty industrial and satisfied your country has no dirty industrial.
Also the dictator can use those industrial and money as weapon to push their authoritarian agenda.
 
if taxation is theft, then you're not arguing that taxation is bad, you're arguing that theft is good

Technically, taxation IS theft. However, it is needed. (how MUCH though, that be the question. As little as possible IMHO)

I don't think so. It would just take a law passed by congress and not ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Who other than the top 10% of USians would object? Is $100 million not enough for you?

Ok, I *think* it would take an amendment. Any such type of tax without one would end up in the courts. guaranteed. The end result of it all: no clue.

No. You just assumed the point was about "people with low income won't have enough to live" when I specifically repeated that it was to illustrate the difference in how flat tax affect people with different income.
I also repeated several times the point about wealth concentration. You simply ignored what I actually said.

It's not about "the number of people with lots of money", it's about "how much money is concentrated in the hand of few people". Wealth redistribution allows :
1) To get enough money for the state to function.
2) Prevent money concentration.

You don't have the answers, but you wish to prevent the system which has been proved to work ?
(because ALL the best societies on Earth have progressive taxes, while the ones with flat taxes are either "cheating" through huge resource exploitation, like petrol, or are oppressive s***holes)
Because you know, at some point when you want two contradictory things you have to decide on which one is more important.
So what is more important to you, that billionnaires are taxed like lower class Joe or that they don't hold all the wealth in their hands ?

"who decides" is the people. That's the point of a democracy. The very reason rich people can get rich (and that money exists to begin with) is that there is a functionning society for them to benefit from. You can't really "sell" anything and get money out of it, if there isn't laws about trade, infrastructure allowing trade, working laws so that you can pay people to do things for you, law enforcement to protect your business and person, and so on.

Seem we have different definitions of things. So I'm just gonna drop it.

Yea fiduciary and corporate law need a massive reform if you want to save the planet from these enemies of humanity. The US have trillions of dollars being hidden away to avoid taxation. Fiduciary and corporate law literally enforces this type of tax dodging. The enemies are the greedy fudgs who made bribery legal in the US, starting back in the 70s.

"Land reform" is code for revolution in this case. Your ignorance of economics, Marxist economics, and their historical implications is keeping you ignorant of how the world is actually working today. All profit by an owner is theft. It is extracting labor from workers and not paying them their due compensation. You will never own the factory, stop shilling for people who steal food from your families.

Ok. Now I see. Marxist. nuh-huh. 'nuff said.
Propaganda and purple kool-aid.

It ain't *just* the 'capitalist' stealing. It's the progressive elites ad nauseum.

Oh well, the next 4 years are gonna be fun as hell to watch.
(and yep, I stocked up on popcorn)

(I just hope we send that moron in Ottawa packing next year. The sooner the better)
 
Ok, I *think* it would take an amendment. Any such type of tax without one would end up in the courts. guaranteed. The end result of it all: no clue.
So we agree. It would end up in court and go to SCOTUS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom