In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote: That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit.
This post is a prime example of why Americans are sick of sending our soldiers to protect the rest of the world. They constantly blast us and our ways and our culture and sneer at us. The only thing they love is our blood. No matter what we do, it is the same story: hate on America and then scream and moan whenever anyone in America suggests that maybe we shouldn't be protecting people who hate us.
Also, I notice you didn't actually refute anything I said. We all know why you didn't. So go ahead and keep attacking, it's all you've got and it's all you'll ever have. And it's why your side is losing.
what exactly is it that you believe their side is losing?
Power. Influence. Social standing.
I believe what we are seeing right now is a semi-permanent backlash from the right-wing which will effectively destroy the Democrats as a legitimate party for the next 16-24 years. The Left will have to completely redefine itself, or wait for a whole new generation of voters without the bad experiences of being burned by them.
All that is predicated on Trump actually winning though, so we'll have to see. As of now, it looks pretty close.
Talk about living in Republican fantasyland.
Millenials are an incredibly liberal generation and people don't become conservative as they get older, they get more extreme and entrenched in whatever ideology they subscribe to. As millenials get older and become more reliable as a voting block (and the older generation continues to die off), it will only bolster the left. The only reason that Republicans have had so much influence over the last 10 years is because of intense partisanship and blatant gerrymandering.
Pretty sure as people get older they become conservative, when you actually have to sacrifice more of your paycheck
Opposite here. I make a shit ton of money and it has only made me realize how ridiculous people are with taxes. I live like a king and still have savings. I don't have kids, but at least for now, it feels inappropriate for me to take home as much as I do. I went through quite a bit of schooling, but I certainly could stand to be taxed a lot more.
I look at my paycheck and see how much money evaporates from taxes. That hurts, to an extent, and I can understand how people are like "how the fuck do I really lose this much money every month". But I also don't get pillaged by bandits and I have roads, so whatever. I am still living amazingly, so I don't wanna complain.
You earned that (I'm assuming), screw giving it to the government. Can't stand progressive tax codes, it screws over the upper class while leaving the 1 percent and up relatively unaffected. I can't stand these super left liberals who want free shit and paid for by the rich.
Putting aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary, all that he "earned", if you want to be an economic realist about it, is his take-home pay. I don't understand why libertarians who fetishize the market don't understand that the salary market takes taxes, healthcare, and other costs into consideration when determining price. He says he is living good and he is, because he's part of the professional class and because he gets paid a take-home amount that theoretically coincides with his value on the market. Everyone in the market he is competing against also has taxes and other deductions from their gross salary. There is literally no sense in even talking about how he "earned" his salary and so shouldn't have to give it to the government. This is obvious when you compare black market, under-the-table wages to similar positions that come with a 1040 and tax deductions. If income taxes were abolished employers would be pocketing that extra money, not paying it to employees. Wages are set by the costs of reproducing the worker not according to some intrinsic value scale that taxes dip into.
I'm not sure a taxation-is-theft libertarian* would disagree with all of that. People certainly leave places (like CA) for tax reasons, which I think they would count as a market consideration. Which is why I suspect you can't so easily set aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary. And the fact that taxes are in large part a political force, as well as an economic one. When the phrase "your fair share" enters into the discussion, it's not merely economic anymore.
*am not a taxation-is-theft libertarian.
Edit: actually, a taxation-is-theft libertarian probably would disagree with all of that. But not most libertarians.
disagree w with what though? my post wasnt about the normative ethics of taxation, only about how wages are determined and what exactly you are "earning" (ie what your wage actually "is"). are you saying a libertarian would disagree that the market takes taxed deductions into account when determining a wage?
people can leave california for tax reasons but thats competition between markets not within markets. in theory you could also leave civilization entirely if you didnt like it, but of course theres no where to go really that isnt owned by someone else at this point. of course for a diehard libertarian thats just a fact of life, you are born into this world w nothing and if you want to leave civilization you need to accumulate enough wealth to buy your own island or whatever.
On July 31 2016 13:02 MasterCynical wrote: I'm in complete support of Trump over Hillary. She and many others should be charged for election fraud over evidence shown in the DNC leaks and countless cases beforehand. It was already suspect when exit polls were off by miles compared to the results released.
Hi, The election hasn't happened yet. It'll be in November. You're thinking of the primary election for the party's candidate. That's an internal Democratic Party election which they can hold whichever way they like. Even if they changed the actual ballots that wouldn't be criminal because you don't have a right to vote in the Democratic Party primary. That might seem strange to you and indeed many people believe political parties act as a barrier between the voters and power but that's the way it is. Both parties could skip the primary phase and just coronate candidates and that'd be legal, you'd still get your constitutionally guaranteed right to choose between them, or any number of third parties, in November. Hopefully this has been educational for you and you now see how silly you looked when you argued for Hillary to be arrested for election fraud in an election that hasn't yet happened.
Facebook could be liable to pay between $3 to $5bn in extra US tax after an extensive investigation by the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into the way the tech company transferred assets to Ireland.
The tax agency has been exploring whether Facebook deliberately deployed complex financial processes designed to minimize the amount of US tax it paid.
The IRS issued the firm with a “statutory notice of deficiency” on 27 July, the company said in its quarterly financial filing, noting that it could have a “material adverse impact” on its finances. Facebook broke out the possible loss in its earnings report, as a minimum of $3bn and maximum of $5bn. It would also be liable for interest lost, though any additional penalties are not known.
On Friday, a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement: “Facebook complies with all applicable rules and regulations in the countries where we operate.”
The IRS began investigating Facebook in 2013 over assets it had transferred in 2010 to its base in Dublin. Ireland is known for its corporation-friendly tax structures; it has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%, compared to the US rate of 35% and 21% in the UK.
The case became public on 6 July when the IRS filed a lawsuit in San Francisco, suing Facebook over access to records related to the transfer. Its 2013 investigation described the valuation of the assets as “problematic”, implying it had undervalued the assets to pay less US tax.
Facebook could be liable to pay between $3 to $5bn in extra US tax after an extensive investigation by the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into the way the tech company transferred assets to Ireland.
The tax agency has been exploring whether Facebook deliberately deployed complex financial processes designed to minimize the amount of US tax it paid.
The IRS issued the firm with a “statutory notice of deficiency” on 27 July, the company said in its quarterly financial filing, noting that it could have a “material adverse impact” on its finances. Facebook broke out the possible loss in its earnings report, as a minimum of $3bn and maximum of $5bn. It would also be liable for interest lost, though any additional penalties are not known.
On Friday, a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement: “Facebook complies with all applicable rules and regulations in the countries where we operate.”
The IRS began investigating Facebook in 2013 over assets it had transferred in 2010 to its base in Dublin. Ireland is known for its corporation-friendly tax structures; it has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%, compared to the US rate of 35% and 21% in the UK.
The case became public on 6 July when the IRS filed a lawsuit in San Francisco, suing Facebook over access to records related to the transfer. Its 2013 investigation described the valuation of the assets as “problematic”, implying it had undervalued the assets to pay less US tax.
On July 30 2016 08:08 Cowboy24 wrote: [quote] This post is a prime example of why Americans are sick of sending our soldiers to protect the rest of the world. They constantly blast us and our ways and our culture and sneer at us. The only thing they love is our blood. No matter what we do, it is the same story: hate on America and then scream and moan whenever anyone in America suggests that maybe we shouldn't be protecting people who hate us.
Also, I notice you didn't actually refute anything I said. We all know why you didn't. So go ahead and keep attacking, it's all you've got and it's all you'll ever have. And it's why your side is losing.
what exactly is it that you believe their side is losing?
Power. Influence. Social standing.
I believe what we are seeing right now is a semi-permanent backlash from the right-wing which will effectively destroy the Democrats as a legitimate party for the next 16-24 years. The Left will have to completely redefine itself, or wait for a whole new generation of voters without the bad experiences of being burned by them.
All that is predicated on Trump actually winning though, so we'll have to see. As of now, it looks pretty close.
Talk about living in Republican fantasyland.
Millenials are an incredibly liberal generation and people don't become conservative as they get older, they get more extreme and entrenched in whatever ideology they subscribe to. As millenials get older and become more reliable as a voting block (and the older generation continues to die off), it will only bolster the left. The only reason that Republicans have had so much influence over the last 10 years is because of intense partisanship and blatant gerrymandering.
Pretty sure as people get older they become conservative, when you actually have to sacrifice more of your paycheck
Opposite here. I make a shit ton of money and it has only made me realize how ridiculous people are with taxes. I live like a king and still have savings. I don't have kids, but at least for now, it feels inappropriate for me to take home as much as I do. I went through quite a bit of schooling, but I certainly could stand to be taxed a lot more.
I look at my paycheck and see how much money evaporates from taxes. That hurts, to an extent, and I can understand how people are like "how the fuck do I really lose this much money every month". But I also don't get pillaged by bandits and I have roads, so whatever. I am still living amazingly, so I don't wanna complain.
You earned that (I'm assuming), screw giving it to the government. Can't stand progressive tax codes, it screws over the upper class while leaving the 1 percent and up relatively unaffected. I can't stand these super left liberals who want free shit and paid for by the rich.
Putting aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary, all that he "earned", if you want to be an economic realist about it, is his take-home pay. I don't understand why libertarians who fetishize the market don't understand that the salary market takes taxes, healthcare, and other costs into consideration when determining price. He says he is living good and he is, because he's part of the professional class and because he gets paid a take-home amount that theoretically coincides with his value on the market. Everyone in the market he is competing against also has taxes and other deductions from their gross salary. There is literally no sense in even talking about how he "earned" his salary and so shouldn't have to give it to the government. This is obvious when you compare black market, under-the-table wages to similar positions that come with a 1040 and tax deductions. If income taxes were abolished employers would be pocketing that extra money, not paying it to employees. Wages are set by the costs of reproducing the worker not according to some intrinsic value scale that taxes dip into.
I'm not sure a taxation-is-theft libertarian* would disagree with all of that. People certainly leave places (like CA) for tax reasons, which I think they would count as a market consideration. Which is why I suspect you can't so easily set aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary. And the fact that taxes are in large part a political force, as well as an economic one. When the phrase "your fair share" enters into the discussion, it's not merely economic anymore.
*am not a taxation-is-theft libertarian.
Edit: actually, a taxation-is-theft libertarian probably would disagree with all of that. But not most libertarians.
disagree w with what though? my post wasnt about the normative ethics of taxation, only about how wages are determined and what exactly you are "earning" (ie what your wage actually "is"). are you saying a libertarian would disagree that the market takes taxed deductions into account when determining a wage?
people can leave california for tax reasons but thats competition between markets not within markets. in theory you could also leave civilization entirely if you didnt like it, but of course theres no where to go really that isnt owned by someone else at this point. of course for a diehard libertarian thats just a fact of life, you are born into this world w nothing and if you want to leave civilization you need to accumulate enough wealth to buy your own island or whatever.
Sorry if I was unclear.
I do think most libertarians would agree with the proposition that "taxes are a factor taken into consideration when offering and negotiating a salary."
But I am saying that, particularly to a hardcore libertarian, you couldn't discuss taxes apart from their morality, especially that of a progressive system. I certainly got that vibe from his post.
The election hasn't happened yet. It'll be in November. You're thinking of the primary election for the party's candidate. That's an internal Democratic Party election which they can hold whichever way they like. Even if they changed the actual ballots that wouldn't be criminal because you don't have a right to vote in the Democratic Party primary. That might seem strange to you and indeed many people believe political parties act as a barrier between the voters and power but that's the way it is. Both parties could skip the primary phase and just coronate candidates and that'd be legal, you'd still get your constitutionally guaranteed right to choose between them, or any number of third parties, in November. Hopefully this has been educational for you and you now see how silly you looked when you argued for Hillary to be arrested for election fraud in an election that hasn't yet happened.
Yes... they can be charged in court for what they've done. It's called racketeering, and there was a lawsuit filed last month, before the emails were leaked.
The election hasn't happened yet. It'll be in November. You're thinking of the primary election for the party's candidate. That's an internal Democratic Party election which they can hold whichever way they like. Even if they changed the actual ballots that wouldn't be criminal because you don't have a right to vote in the Democratic Party primary. That might seem strange to you and indeed many people believe political parties act as a barrier between the voters and power but that's the way it is. Both parties could skip the primary phase and just coronate candidates and that'd be legal, you'd still get your constitutionally guaranteed right to choose between them, or any number of third parties, in November. Hopefully this has been educational for you and you now see how silly you looked when you argued for Hillary to be arrested for election fraud in an election that hasn't yet happened.
Yes... they can be charged in court for what they've done. It's called racketeering, and there was a lawsuit filed last month, before the emails were leaked.
Introvert, I would argue that progressive tax rates recognize that while the value of any dollar is one dollar the marginal increase in utility provided by ownership of a dollar varies hugely depending on how many dollars you have. A system that failed to understand that not all dollars are equally precious would be less fair than a progressive one. Additionally from a pragmatic stance it's far easier to tax the rich than the poor because the rich can actually pay them. The poor, not so much. Any flat tax would require huge cuts in government spending across the board which, given the redistributive nature of spending, would dramatically widen the wealth gap and fundamentally change the social structure of the United States.
I have 1% parents and so does my wife and we'll be making 1% money soon enough. I don't like taxes but it's just the way it has to be.
The election hasn't happened yet. It'll be in November. You're thinking of the primary election for the party's candidate. That's an internal Democratic Party election which they can hold whichever way they like. Even if they changed the actual ballots that wouldn't be criminal because you don't have a right to vote in the Democratic Party primary. That might seem strange to you and indeed many people believe political parties act as a barrier between the voters and power but that's the way it is. Both parties could skip the primary phase and just coronate candidates and that'd be legal, you'd still get your constitutionally guaranteed right to choose between them, or any number of third parties, in November. Hopefully this has been educational for you and you now see how silly you looked when you argued for Hillary to be arrested for election fraud in an election that hasn't yet happened.
Yes... they can be charged in court for what they've done. It's called racketeering, and there was a lawsuit filed last month, before the emails were leaked.
On July 31 2016 13:27 KwarK wrote: Introvert, I would argue that progressive tax rates recognize that while the value of any dollar is one dollar the marginal increase in utility provided by ownership of a dollar varies hugely depending on how many dollars you have. A system that failed to understand that not all dollars are equally previous would be less fair than a progressive one. Additionally from a pragmatic stance it's far easier to tax the rich than the poor because the rich can actually pay them. The poor, not so much. Any flat tax would require huge cuts in government spending across the board which, given the redistributive nature of spending, would dramatically widen the wealth gap and fundamentally change the social structure of the United States.
I have 1% parents and so does my wife and we'll be making 1% money soon enough. I don't like taxes but it's just the way it has to be.
I don't think a libertarian in particular would object to any of this (although they might argue the wealth gap point, not sure). Which, again, is why one cannot simply make an economic argument when discussing this matter.
Edit: maybe I should defer to the resident libertarian.
I have my own views but don't feel like expounding on them atm.
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me"
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things"
Trump also accused Clinton via Twitter of "trying to rig" the fall presidential debates by scheduling two of the three debates on the same night as NFL games. The schedule was set last September by a nonpartisan commission, which said the campaigns were not consulted about dates. Trump also said the NFL complained to him about the debate schedule in a letter, but the league said it sent no such letter.
There is a very strong pattern of him claiming certain organizations have sent him this or that and the organization claims no such thing occurred- I'm thinking specifically of his spat with John Oliver's show, where he claimed to have an invite and they said that he never had. This seems to be a frequent occurrence.
On July 31 2016 12:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: You know what's better? Instead of leaning on one leader, you support a united party who through teamwork build together a system of laws that helps the majority.
Unfortunately, no major party in the US can be called "united" right now.
The Democratic primary just had its winner have a lead against her opponent in every single metric: total votes, pledged delegates, super delegates. She won these by being ahead in high voter turnout states with her opponent primarily only getting ahead in caucus states where voting is difficult and limited. Hilary won by a massive landslide and we mainly spent months sitting around wondering why the other guy was still running.
For the most part the only group not united in the democratic party is reddit and facebook. The party itself is super fucking united.
It seems you missed the protests within the DNC convention, the seat fillers and the blocking of the media. Or the leaked mails.
The leaked emails showed nothing. Mainly showed that the DNC didn't like Sanders.
There are also no ballots being turned in during the convention. So unless those delegates were planning on switching their delegate vote to Hilary, they've already been accounted for during the primary process. They were literally only there to cause a ruckus. But their vote is both already known and accounted.
Saying the debates reaching more people benefits him is a similar power play to how he talked about Colorado. It doesn't matter if the "system" wasn't designed with him in mind, facts are tangential to what he's doing, which is already building the impression that Hillary is weak in debates.
The election hasn't happened yet. It'll be in November. You're thinking of the primary election for the party's candidate. That's an internal Democratic Party election which they can hold whichever way they like. Even if they changed the actual ballots that wouldn't be criminal because you don't have a right to vote in the Democratic Party primary. That might seem strange to you and indeed many people believe political parties act as a barrier between the voters and power but that's the way it is. Both parties could skip the primary phase and just coronate candidates and that'd be legal, you'd still get your constitutionally guaranteed right to choose between them, or any number of third parties, in November. Hopefully this has been educational for you and you now see how silly you looked when you argued for Hillary to be arrested for election fraud in an election that hasn't yet happened.
Yes... they can be charged in court for what they've done. It's called racketeering, and there was a lawsuit filed last month, before the emails were leaked.
Good luck with that friend. Let me know how it goes.
The more interesting part is how everyone uses those emails to show what happened in the primary when none of the emails show anything happening at all. All the emails show is that the party disliked Sanders and some in the party were ready to do things to stop him but were not actually doing it because it was both not needed and because there leader did not approve of taking such actions. Basically all those emails show is that the judges had personal opinions on the thing they were judging which sadly all judges do but they dont show any actual impropriety on the part of the DNC towards the Sanders campaign in any way shape or form.
On July 31 2016 13:33 Doodsmack wrote: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me"
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things"
Trump also accused Clinton via Twitter of "trying to rig" the fall presidential debates by scheduling two of the three debates on the same night as NFL games. The schedule was set last September by a nonpartisan commission, which said the campaigns were not consulted about dates. Trump also said the NFL complained to him about the debate schedule in a letter, but the league said it sent no such letter.
- Dice Roll Donald, 7/30/16
That first quote was good but the best quote of Donald about the interview is one I still can not believe he made. I can not believe even having seen him say it that he had the gall to say that he had made sacrifices because he built a large company and created thousands of jobs and when pressed said that counts as a sacrifice and more importantly had the gall to consider that a sacrifice in the same realm as the man who lost his son to combat. I can not believe there is a human being with such unmatched arrogance to even think that let alone say that. It just disgusted me beyond words (I know i typed a lot on it but it did).
On July 31 2016 13:33 Doodsmack wrote: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me"
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things"
Trump also accused Clinton via Twitter of "trying to rig" the fall presidential debates by scheduling two of the three debates on the same night as NFL games. The schedule was set last September by a nonpartisan commission, which said the campaigns were not consulted about dates. Trump also said the NFL complained to him about the debate schedule in a letter, but the league said it sent no such letter.
- Dice Roll Donald, 7/30/16
I mean, he did say he'd defend article 12 of the constitution
I do feel like Trump has been a little more unhinged after the DNC. Curious to see how the polls start shaking out.
Anecdotal, but I have a high school friend who is a hardcore Republican that defriended me on Facebook shortly after Obama was re-elected in 2012, but recently re-added me and messaged me that she would be voting Democrat this year. Heh.
On July 31 2016 06:23 Godwrath wrote: From the Hillary's "flip flopping" (using the expression because my english sucks too much to find a better) is not so much about being a flexible candidate, but the loss of trust in regards if she genuinely changed her views. It's clear that being able to change your point of view is fine, but it is also fine for people to be skeptic until she proves that she legitimately changed her views, and that takes time.
If you change your stance in plenty things (not saying Hillary had), it is only natural to be wary.
Wait what??
Honest question: Do you care more about what a politician actually passes or what a politician believes deep down in their soul? If you care more about what they pass--then who cares what they believe? If you care about what they believe, then why does it matter what they can or can't pass?
Who said anything about caring what she believes deep down on her soul ? You care about if she truly would attempt to work on those subjects where she changed stances if you care that much about them, if it seems dishonest, you may think that she won't do anything about them. It's not about what she truly believes, but what you perceive she will do lol. And people have a habit of not trusting people who changes on subjects often for good reason (ie say anything to get elected, do whatever they want to when they finally get in).
On July 31 2016 01:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No and the debate schedule has been agreed upon by both parties for over a year.
Ah well in that case yeah... Trump is being dumb.
NFL is almost always played at 1:00 PM EST, 4:10 PM EST, and 6:20 PM EST on Sundays. This has happened since they put Sunday Night Football on in 2006.
Monday Night Football has almost always played on Monday night at 7 or 8 EST depending on daylight savings.
But the 2016 schedule was released after the debate schedule, let's blame that!
EPT
