|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 10 2019 05:31 Plansix wrote:
It isn't like the goverment doesn't' know how much money we make in a year. Its all reported. Our system exists to allow companies like turbo tax and H&R Block to continue to exist. Ofcourse, which is why a good tax filing website by the IRS would have of the data already filled in for you, just needing to add any personal stuff like Kwark mentioned, it would be convenient and quick (insofar as taxes are ever convenient).
Which is why its lobbied against so hard.
|
People in USA don't file their tax returns?
Mine is like 10 pages long, one of which is blank page. WTF USA, land of capitalism, what are you doing?
|
We hire people to file them. Or use an online system to do it for us that costs money through trickery.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
Public bureaucracy runs at least 10-15 years behind sensible solutions that factor in tech the vast majority of people use. I’m ways that would cut costs, lag time, as well as save the odd tree.
Not all that different from education, especially college.
|
I'm sure it would be harder than we think, but not it is not impossible. I do know that if it was created, it would face unlimited attempts to hack, circumvent and manipulate it from day one. But these are not insurmountable problems.
|
United States42720 Posts
On April 10 2019 06:34 Plansix wrote:
We hire people to file them. Or use an online system to do it for us that costs money through trickery.
Fun fact. HR Block free file tells you right at the end that you have to pay them for state returns, even if you qualify for the FFA free file. When you go back to the homepage and select the FFA free file version where state returns are free it won’t pull any of your info over, and instead makes you put everything back in from scratch.
Intentional time wasting and fuckery.
|
On April 10 2019 07:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 06:34 Plansix wrote:
We hire people to file them. Or use an online system to do it for us that costs money through trickery. Fun fact. HR Block free file tells you right at the end that you have to pay them for state returns, even if you qualify for the FFA free file. When you go back to the homepage and select the FFA free file version where state returns are free it won’t pull any of your info over, and instead makes you put everything back in from scratch. Intentional time wasting and fuckery.
Shit like this makes me so happy I can just file directly in PA.
|
On April 10 2019 07:00 Plansix wrote:
I'm sure it would be harder than we think, but not it is not impossible. I do know that if it was created, it would face unlimited attempts to hack, circumvent and manipulate it from day one. But these are not insurmountable problems.
I know that we have a system that allows for online tax filing here in Germany. I honestly can not judge how well it works since my taxes are currently exceedingly simple, and always result that i don't need to pay any taxes since i don't make a lot of money. But i don't think i have heard any major complaints about it so far, which leads me to assume that it works at least similarly well as the previous paper based system.
The system is called Elster, which is a shortening of the german words for "electronic tax filing", but which also just means magpie. I am sure someone thought that they were really funny here.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2019 07:00 Plansix wrote:
I'm sure it would be harder than we think, but not it is not impossible. I do know that if it was created, it would face unlimited attempts to hack, circumvent and manipulate it from day one. But these are not insurmountable problems.
Does that matter all that much?
The spectre of hacking is always invoked to stymie sensible moves to digitise stuff that just should be digitised because it makes much more practical sense.
Ok the very first part was facetious, it’s not so much that those concerns are unfounded, it’s more that how is paperwork more secure?
Just have a system that gates access, it couldn’t be that complicated to do.
Person sends tax return over the miracle of the internet to server. It’s pulled from server to a local one for processing and checking and verification, one that is not connected to the internet. Once verified it’s stuck in some storage place where if it needs retrieved subsequently it can be, also physically isolated from other networks.
Sure it’s not 100% secure, but is it less secure than paperwork? Your file you send across would only be utilising the internet for as long as it took to arrive at the other end and be pulled into their intranet or what have you.
Vs me sending a tax return through the mail that has to pass through multiple hands to even get to the relevant people.
And yes I’m not a person of interest, and yes it’s hard to leak without it being traced back to you.
I’m honestly surprised Trump’s returns didn’t pass through the hands of at least one neverTrumper and they thought leaking it was worth the risk tbh.
With my hypothetical system, based on zero technical cyber-security knowledge, your return would only be temporarily accessible to the outside world, and subsequently would be gated on a server which would log access on whoever looked at it, so even a zealous leaker would be bloody easily found.
|
The big difference is that if a digital system is breached, a lot of stuff can be stolen at once, and no one might ever know.
If physical paper data is stolen, someone needs to drive up with a bunch of trucks if they want lots of data, and people are bound to notice. So in a very real way, paper is more secure than digital data.
However, that should not mean that we do everything in paper always. Because paper is also a lot slower and less efficient, for the same reasons.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
mobile.twitter.com
Oh that was fun
I don’t use Twitter at all, apparently thumbnail embedding failure on my part.
Candace Owens got called out in Congress by an individual who just played back some of her own words re Hitler on a phone.
As someone who feels Candace Owens basically entirely hides behind the ‘but I’m black so I can’t have x views’ defence I quite enjoyed this and thought others might.
But yes as per the remit of the thread, failure on my part thanks for pointing it out
|
Might wanne add some details and context to that before the mods see it.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
|
Yeah, but the rules are at the top of the thread. You gotta put your explanation in the post itself.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2019 08:44 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, but the rules are at the top of the thread. You gotta put your explanation in the post itself.
I’ve seen people post and the Twitter thumbnail is self-explanatory, apparently I’m too much of a noob.
Incidentally going back, internet regulation, what and how?
I think we have a monster on our hands because of a weird culmination of various factors. The most international and borderless by nature entity that we have, is not and has not been regulated on an international basis. Except by the EU and when they do people complain they’re trying to ban memes.
The US didn’t care about regulating the sphere, even rhetorically until the evil Russians got involved.
What do we want to regulate, why and how? Come to some kind of vague international agreement and push that going forwards.
As it stands we don’t have well, anything. Facebook get some flak about regulation if something bad like a terrorist incident happens, get zero framework to work in, get zero consensus in that sense.
I think the big tech companies are just a scapegoat when it suits, and nothing meaningful to actually construct some kind of internet framework for 2019 is ever done.
I don’t particularly like them but they get to dodge tax with the consent of governments and do all sorts, whenever anything bad happens ‘oh why didn’t they prevent this?’ scapegoating
I have a truly giant, giant wall of text somewhere on this but was curious as to where you stand.
I don’t think extremism that expands to a terroristic level is actually that big a deal, at all on these platforms. Misinformation and proliferation of bullshit is much more a problem on a general societal level.
|
United States42720 Posts
On April 10 2019 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:Might wanne add some details and context to that before the mods see it.
I enjoy “she distanced herself from those comments” conceptually. How much distance can you really put between yourself and a thing you said. You can apologize or retract, but can you really distance yourself from it? It feels like a Michael Scott utterance. “I distance myself from those actions”.
|
On April 10 2019 05:15 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 02:10 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying?
Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people. He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck Except a lot of them aren’t actually stupid at all, just undereducated in many instances, plus at least in the UK there’s a bunch of class prejudice in that sense. But yeah he does have some weird inexplicable voodoo powers I don’t fully understand, so it’s not entirely luck no agreed there
I didn’t say every athlete was stupid did I?
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2019 09:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 05:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 10 2019 02:10 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people. He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck Except a lot of them aren’t actually stupid at all, just undereducated in many instances, plus at least in the UK there’s a bunch of class prejudice in that sense. But yeah he does have some weird inexplicable voodoo powers I don’t fully understand, so it’s not entirely luck no agreed there I didn’t say every athlete was stupid did I?
Well no, the contextual inference of ‘sure look at professional sports after ‘he can be very stupid and still have unique skills’ is that professional sportsmen tend to be stupid, I don’t think that’s an unfair reading at all.
|
On April 10 2019 09:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:Might wanne add some details and context to that before the mods see it. I enjoy “she distanced herself from those comments” conceptually. How much distance can you really put between yourself and a thing you said. You can apologize or retract, but can you really distance yourself from it? It feels like a Michael Scott utterance. “I distance myself from those actions”.
Candace Owen is shallow and shameless enough to make a career out of buffoonery
|
On April 10 2019 09:42 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 09:30 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2019 05:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 10 2019 02:10 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people. He can be very stupid and still have unique skills. Look at professional sports for other examples of this phenomenon. I previously placed him in the realm of habitual performance, close to an unthinking, instinctual animal. Luck plays a role but to win at the highest levels, to win a Presidential election, it cannot be simply luck Except a lot of them aren’t actually stupid at all, just undereducated in many instances, plus at least in the UK there’s a bunch of class prejudice in that sense. But yeah he does have some weird inexplicable voodoo powers I don’t fully understand, so it’s not entirely luck no agreed there I didn’t say every athlete was stupid did I? Well no, the contextual inference of ‘sure look at professional sports after ‘he can be very stupid and still have unique skills’ is that professional sportsmen tend to be stupid, I don’t think that’s an unfair reading at all.
you should quote me verbatim if you are going to impugn my contextual framing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
