|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 August 30 2017 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote:
He signed the letter himself. There is nothing about the Russia investigation he has not lied about.
Lol these idiots didn't disclose this until the media found it. Wonder why. Now they just look worse.
They could be some of the dumbest people alive. If this is even half has bad as it looks, that final report on the investigation is going to be a show stopper.
|
On August 30 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling  Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system?
It would have to be instead of the existing system, but then setting it up would be impossible so you can't really do either.
Edit elaborate: Employers currently provide health coverage. They do not have to pay taxes on this coverage. Simple solution is to pay the employee the money they were contributing. However, that money is now subject to things like social security taxes by the employer so it isn't as simple as moving the money from contributions to salary.
Are you really going to renegotiate salary with your entire workforce and what happens if you can't reach an agreement?
|
It shouldn't cost an extra 10% to have general healthcare. For instance income tax would be 10-20% for the vast majority of full time people in UK. Including a VAT of 20% as a general tax on everything, that would be 24%. Healthcare is 20% of the UK budget, so about 5%.
Edit: Actually looking at it in USA you are actually indirectly taxed through payroll taxes and that mucks up that calculation.
Roughly speaking 80% of USA is funded through Income/Payroll whereas in UK 65% is funded through Income/National Insurance/VAT. Going to treat it all as tax on income. Taking 20% x 65/80 x 20% = 3.25%
USA already pays 6% of budget into healthcare. Scrapping that healthcare and paying 20% instead would mean 2.3% extra income/payroll tax on top.
|
On August 30 2017 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system? It would have to be instead of the existing system, but then setting it up would be impossible so you can't really do either. Edit elaborate: Employers currently provide health coverage. They do not have to pay taxes on this coverage. Simple solution is to pay the employee the money they were contributing. However, that money is now subject to things like social security taxes by the employer so it isn't as simple as moving the money from contributions to salary. Are you really going to renegotiate salary with your entire workforce and what happens if you can't reach an agreement?
Just pay the employee what you pay into healthcare minus the medicare tax
|
On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article.
If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards."
|
This seems like a stupid move
|
On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less.
Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember.
|
On August 30 2017 01:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 30 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system? It would have to be instead of the existing system, but then setting it up would be impossible so you can't really do either. Edit elaborate: Employers currently provide health coverage. They do not have to pay taxes on this coverage. Simple solution is to pay the employee the money they were contributing. However, that money is now subject to things like social security taxes by the employer so it isn't as simple as moving the money from contributions to salary. Are you really going to renegotiate salary with your entire workforce and what happens if you can't reach an agreement? Just pay the employee what you pay into healthcare minus the medicare tax
So you're saying that the employer should just steal part of the money to cover their FICA taxes on my additional wages? Good luck selling that wage cut when you take this plan to the American people.
I think it would be interesting to see an actual study with numbers on if it would be a pay cut or not for most Americans, but I doubt such a study could exist.
|
On August 30 2017 01:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:47 Sadist wrote:On August 30 2017 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 30 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system? It would have to be instead of the existing system, but then setting it up would be impossible so you can't really do either. Edit elaborate: Employers currently provide health coverage. They do not have to pay taxes on this coverage. Simple solution is to pay the employee the money they were contributing. However, that money is now subject to things like social security taxes by the employer so it isn't as simple as moving the money from contributions to salary. Are you really going to renegotiate salary with your entire workforce and what happens if you can't reach an agreement? Just pay the employee what you pay into healthcare minus the medicare tax So you're saying that the employer should just steal part of the money to cover their FICA taxes on my additional wages? Good luck selling that wage cut when you take this plan to the American people. I think it would be interesting to see an actual study with numbers on if it would be a pay cut or not for most Americans, but I doubt such a study could exist.
How does 2.3% of your wage sound? Or 1.14% with FICA paying half? That's the cost of replacing the current American system with a British System. Emergency care is "free". Seeing a doctor is "free". Cancer care is "free". Aftercare for surgery is "free". Children and elderly get checks and vaccinations for free. Health awareness and advice is "free". You may have to pay like $50 to get a tooth removed though.
|
United States42024 Posts
On August 30 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article. If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards."
If you vote for Trump because you're angry about being called a racist then you're a racist who lacks the moral courage of the members of the KKK.
I do not believe that the American right support racism as a way of hitting back at those who called them racist. Apparently that means I think more of the American right than the author of that article does. I think they support it because they've entangled systematic white privilege with the status quo and confuse attempts to fix racist issues with attacks on them.
However I have far more respect for the KKK member who will argue that it's important that blacks not be allowed to vote because their brains are less developed than the Bloomberg author who'll vote to support efforts to suppress African Americans to get back at the people who called him racist. The KKK guy is wrong, but I get why he's doing it, the conclusion is a natural extension of his incorrect starting premises. The Bloomberg author, he knows what he's doing is wrong, he's just too petty to care.
|
United States42024 Posts
For someone who exists as an Ouroboros parasite that feeds on the cycle of drama she herself shits out? Sounds like an A+ career move.
|
On August 30 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article. If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards."
My main problem with his entire argument is this:
Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote.
Nothing in the article backs up this conclusion. He levels some fair criticism at the ongoing narrative about Trump and republican supporters, but then totally jumps the shark by claiming that they are anti-democratic. His lead-in is equally tortured, were he tries to claim that Trump's disdain for checks and balances is fine because he won an election and its being checked.
But this discussion represents a larger problem for Republicans as a whole. Trump was and continues to be an overtly racist politician, in language and actions. This is through his own actions and the actions of Sessions as AG. There is nothing subtle about it. At some point that support for Trump moves from the simple desire their own well-being to them ignoring the clear efforts by Trump to marginalize and repress minority groups. There is a spiteful nature to the way he rolled out the travel ban and trangender ban that is really hard to ignore.
|
Well time to fire Mueller
|
On August 30 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article. If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards." If you vote for Trump because you're angry about being called a racist then you're a racist who lacks the moral courage of the members of the KKK. I do not believe that the American right support racism as a way of hitting back at those who called them racist. Apparently that means I think more of the American right than the author of that article does. I think they support it because they've entangled systematic white privilege with the status quo and confuse attempts to fix racist issues with attacks on them. However I have far more respect for the KKK member who will argue that it's important that blacks not be allowed to vote because their brains are less developed than the Bloomberg author who'll vote to support efforts to suppress African Americans to get back at the people who called him racist. The KKK guy is wrong, but I get why he's doing it, the conclusion is a natural extension of his incorrect starting premises. The Bloomberg author, he knows what he's doing is wrong, he's just too petty to care.
Now you raise an interesting question. What do you do with the Kwarks of the world that think most of the GOP is racists, and thinks the solution is they need to be taught to be less racist? Now, I know similarly deranged Trump supporters that think all the Democrats think they're racist and sit secure in their coastal bubbles. They rely on the NYT and WaPo to bring them bulletins at how the racists are getting along in the Midwest. I try to tell them ... these people aren't the majority! There's kind, good-hearted Democrats that won't smear first and ask questions later. Maybe they think you're less compassionate, or don't think you read enough of inner city struggles ... but they don't actually think their neighbor with the Trump sign voted for him because he supports racists.
Now, granted, you're a vocal minority. You were shocked that Trump had a chance and you should be allowed some years to get over the initial surprise you were not well equipped for. Of course that guttural reaction of "all dem Trump voters are racists or are fine supporting racists" will be the first one. You have my pity if that's your last thought on the matter. Sincerely.
Later, as time goes on and hopefully the violent protests subside, you might recognize that Trump only got in the 30s of support in the primaries. He was opposed by the majority, but it was a packed field. The GOP was(is) struggling with conservative betrayers that act differently in office, and the bombastic reality TV businessman looked like a cure for sleazy politicians. There was a lot of Jen Bush reactionary fervor, and Trump gained from being first hammering him. The media thought this was a sure win and did 24/7 televised speeches starting when the podium was still empty.
Kwark deserves some respect for being brave enough to figuratively take out the map of the US and write "racists here" over the big GOP strongholds. Disgusting, but unapologetic. Racists need to be taught by their moral betters and admit their white privilege to be accepted into the cozy cosmopolitan circles. It's a tight philosophy. Disgusting, but tight.
|
On August 30 2017 02:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Well time to fire Mueller
I wouldn’t be shocked if he did, to be honest. The man clearly has no shame or understanding.
But it would be terrible for the country.
|
So...I wonder how Trump will spin this one? So, no deals, no relations with Russia indeed.
|
On August 30 2017 02:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
So...I wonder how Trump will spin this one? So, no deals, no relations with Russia indeed.
'A successful guy like me signs many things, alright? Nobody has got time to read all that stuff, believe me. Do you think Obama read everything he signed as president? The media is very unfair to me, very unfair. Greatest witchhunt in the history of mankind. Just another fake news report to hide the fact they lost the election in a landslide'
|
I thought it was an easy question but apparently it is not. :D Are Americans willing to pay 10% of their income for general health insurance if a system existed that offered it, even though they are perfectly healthy and won't get a cent back in the next 10 years except for accidents. Is this something the majority would do?
|
On August 30 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article. If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards." If you vote for Trump because you're angry about being called a racist then you're a racist who lacks the moral courage of the members of the KKK. I do not believe that the American right support racism as a way of hitting back at those who called them racist. Apparently that means I think more of the American right than the author of that article does. I think they support it because they've entangled systematic white privilege with the status quo and confuse attempts to fix racist issues with attacks on them. However I have far more respect for the KKK member who will argue that it's important that blacks not be allowed to vote because their brains are less developed than the Bloomberg author who'll vote to support efforts to suppress African Americans to get back at the people who called him racist. The KKK guy is wrong, but I get why he's doing it, the conclusion is a natural extension of his incorrect starting premises. The Bloomberg author, he knows what he's doing is wrong, he's just too petty to care. Now you raise an interesting question. What do you do with the Kwarks of the world that think most of the GOP is racists, and thinks the solution is they need to be taught to be less racist? Now, I know similarly deranged Trump supporters that think all the Democrats think they're racist and sit secure in their coastal bubbles. They rely on the NYT and WaPo to bring them bulletins at how the racists are getting along in the Midwest. I try to tell them ... these people aren't the majority! There's kind, good-hearted Democrats that won't smear first and ask questions later. Maybe they think you're less compassionate, or don't think you read enough of inner city struggles ... but they don't actually think their neighbor with the Trump sign voted for him because he supports racists. Now, granted, you're a vocal minority. You were shocked that Trump had a chance and you should be allowed some years to get over the initial surprise you were not well equipped for. Of course that guttural reaction of "all dem Trump voters are racists or are fine supporting racists" will be the first one. You have my pity if that's your last thought on the matter. Sincerely. Later, as time goes on and hopefully the violent protests subside, you might recognize that Trump only got in the 30s of support in the primaries. He was opposed by the majority, but it was a packed field. The GOP was(is) struggling with conservative betrayers that act differently in office, and the bombastic reality TV businessman looked like a cure for sleazy politicians. There was a lot of Jen Bush reactionary fervor, and Trump gained from being first hammering him. The media thought this was a sure win and did 24/7 televised speeches starting when the podium was still empty. Kwark deserves some respect for being brave enough to figuratively take out the map of the US and write "racists here" over the big GOP strongholds. Disgusting, but unapologetic. Racists need to be taught by their moral betters and admit their white privilege to be accepted into the cozy cosmopolitan circles. It's a tight philosophy. Disgusting, but tight.
Danglars, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 30 2017 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 30 2017 01:47 Sadist wrote:On August 30 2017 01:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On August 30 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system? It would have to be instead of the existing system, but then setting it up would be impossible so you can't really do either. Edit elaborate: Employers currently provide health coverage. They do not have to pay taxes on this coverage. Simple solution is to pay the employee the money they were contributing. However, that money is now subject to things like social security taxes by the employer so it isn't as simple as moving the money from contributions to salary. Are you really going to renegotiate salary with your entire workforce and what happens if you can't reach an agreement? Just pay the employee what you pay into healthcare minus the medicare tax So you're saying that the employer should just steal part of the money to cover their FICA taxes on my additional wages? Good luck selling that wage cut when you take this plan to the American people. I think it would be interesting to see an actual study with numbers on if it would be a pay cut or not for most Americans, but I doubt such a study could exist. How does 2.3% of your wage sound?
The money is invisible to the person anyway. And it would only be 2.3% on your benefits.
Realistically the medicare tax will have to go up but theres still a chance your pay would come out ahead. Theres also the little benefit of no longer having healthcare tied to employment so if you lose your job or are switching jobs you are ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
25611
1796
1773
EPT
