|
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 November 19 2020 04:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 03:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 19 2020 02:33 NewSunshine wrote:
Now that his momentum is finally about to well and truly run dry, keep an eye out for R's claiming to have never really supported him. The Republican's methodology has 100% consisted of rallying behind whoever gains momentum, turning their moral compass on a dime, and then claiming to have never known or supported them when they finally disappear. They're going to hope people don't remember they rallied behind an open Fascist and White Supremacist. I think this is true in a world where the US population at large recognizes him as a fascist and white supremacist, and recognizes these as undesirable things. I don't think we live in that world, and this election being closer than the landslide some of us expected is pretty good evidence that we're not super close to that world, either. Something compels people to vote for Trump, and I don't actually think it's knowing support of fascism or white supremacy that accounts for the majority of it. The guy that improves past Republican margins among minorities and women needs better analysis than blaming racist blacks & Latinos and misogynist women for the victory. According to exit polling, Trump’s “open fascist and white supremacist” did better with women, blacks, and Latinos, and worse only among white men, when comparing with 2016. It appears deductive from what should have happened based on personal analysis, rather than deductive from what actually happened from the voting electorate.
Remember that though the share vote percentage for republicans may have increased in those populations, the actual vote margin in raw numbers actually increased, due to the huge turnout this election got.
(for math-lazy people :
100k for X, 400k for Y makes 80/20% with a 300k vote difference.
150k for X, 500k for Y makes 77/23% with a 350k difference.
Percentage increased, vote margin increased the other way)
|
On November 19 2020 05:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 02:37 3 Lions wrote:On November 19 2020 02:33 NewSunshine wrote:
Now that his momentum is finally about to well and truly run dry, keep an eye out for R's claiming to have never really supported him. The Republican's methodology has 100% consisted of rallying behind whoever gains momentum, turning their moral compass on a dime, and then claiming to have never known or supported them when they finally disappear. They're going to hope people don't remember they rallied behind an open Fascist and White Supremacist. I don't think this will happen. If anything, this election (and 2016) demonstrates that he actually has a stronger base amongst Republicans than any other candidate that they can put forward. Hard for Republicans to turn against him if he's their most likely candidate in 2024. I don't think I quite agree with this take yet, just because of the sheer amount of places that flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020. The amount of split ticket voting against Trump but for Republican House and Senate candidates was pretty huge (so much so that it's one of the things Trump incorrectly claims is evidence of voter fraud), as was the voting for state-level positions. To me that's a sign the party might not be quite so enthused with him as you would expect; even if his base is more motivated, the never-Trumpers seem to also have been energized. We will see in 2024 though. I still am not sure he will run, if only because I don't think that as an overgrown baby he has the mental strength to do any of this again. It's much easier to just play kingmaker and continue grifting and tweeting on the side. Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 04:58 Danglars wrote:
Google the exit polls. Trump increased his vote share from 2016 among basically everyone except white me. In theory, four years of overt white supremacy should have lost support among minorities and gained among white men. If that’s even an election aspect worth talking about/adjudicating. This is probably the worst time in history to use exit polling for pretty much anything-even the ones correcting for COVID problems are basically just doing guesswork. It would be a miracle if exit polls didn't show him expanding his margins in most groups when he specifically told all his supporters not to vote by mail. Some of the registration stuff points in this direction, but even that is tough to parse given the fact registration is far from a perfect method for predicting voting behavior.
Wait, have they polled in any way people that voted by mail? Because if not, then no surprise that exit polls show gains for Trump...
Edit: so apparently they did some phone interviews with people registered to vote by mail. www.cnn.com but the link I found doesn't actually have the proper methodology. Does anybody have a good source for this?
|
On November 19 2020 05:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 04:31 Slydie wrote:
Calling names like "racist", "white supremacist" and "racist" is only going to fire up Trump's, and won't solve any problems.
Remember how arrogant Trump supporters were acting in 2016? It is going to be difficult, but it is time to be better and treat the 72 million losers with respect.
The only way out of this mess is to focus on what brings US citizens together. I’ve never understood the argument that we shouldn’t call racists racist in case it offends racists. Why should we make public discourse a safe space for racists and their fragile feelings?
Because they'll call you some other"-ist". Like; elitist, classist, socialist, etc. Words hurt and people don't want to confront their deficiencies in life/social life. They want to be coddled but also hate those who are coddled. They are strong. Proud. Not losers.
/s
|
Maybe I should table the racist and fascist talk, and instead highlight that he was a cronyistic buffoon who ignored the existence of a pandemic, killing thousands upon thousands and body slamming the economy, while only giving breaks and COVID relief to the ultra wealthy capitalist class. Maybe Trump's apologists will like that better.
|
On November 19 2020 05:44 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 04:14 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2020 03:51 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 19 2020 02:33 NewSunshine wrote:
Now that his momentum is finally about to well and truly run dry, keep an eye out for R's claiming to have never really supported him. The Republican's methodology has 100% consisted of rallying behind whoever gains momentum, turning their moral compass on a dime, and then claiming to have never known or supported them when they finally disappear. They're going to hope people don't remember they rallied behind an open Fascist and White Supremacist. I think this is true in a world where the US population at large recognizes him as a fascist and white supremacist, and recognizes these as undesirable things. I don't think we live in that world, and this election being closer than the landslide some of us expected is pretty good evidence that we're not super close to that world, either. Something compels people to vote for Trump, and I don't actually think it's knowing support of fascism or white supremacy that accounts for the majority of it. The guy that improves past Republican margins among minorities and women needs better analysis than blaming racist blacks & Latinos and misogynist women for the victory. According to exit polling, Trump’s “open fascist and white supremacist” did better with women, blacks, and Latinos, and worse only among white men, when comparing with 2016. It appears deductive from what should have happened based on personal analysis, rather than deductive from what actually happened from the voting electorate. Remember that though the share vote percentage for republicans may have increased in those populations, the actual vote margin in raw numbers actually increased, due to the huge turnout this election got. (for math-lazy people : 100k for X, 400k for Y makes 80/20% with a 300k vote difference. 150k for X, 500k for Y makes 77/23% with a 350k difference. Percentage increased, vote margin increased the other way)
Right. That’s why Trump got more people to vote for him 2020 compared to 2016 (more ballots were cast for him), but still lost the vote. (Referring to margins and improvements compared to voting numbers)
|
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism.
|
United States43966 Posts
On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism.
Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves.
|
On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves.
This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires.
|
United States43966 Posts
On November 19 2020 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves. This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires.
Or just run a 4t deficit because that’s allowed now.
|
Both are fine choices imo
|
On November 19 2020 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:
Maybe I should table the racist and fascist talk, and instead highlight that he was a cronyistic buffoon who ignored the existence of a pandemic, killing thousands upon thousands and body slamming the economy, while only giving breaks and COVID relief to the ultra wealthy capitalist class. Maybe Trump's apologists will like that better.
It's a fine set of issue-driven problems to criticize, to be sure.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
On November 19 2020 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves. This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires.
You can even exclude the billionaire talk and that plan would get my vote. I’d even entertain and higher tax on goods and services. I just want 100% of my earned money to go to me  . I want the social security tax removed too.
|
On November 19 2020 07:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:
Maybe I should table the racist and fascist talk, and instead highlight that he was a cronyistic buffoon who ignored the existence of a pandemic, killing thousands upon thousands and body slamming the economy, while only giving breaks and COVID relief to the ultra wealthy capitalist class. Maybe Trump's apologists will like that better. It's a fine set of issue-driven problems to criticize, to be sure.
I want to make it clear I don't even necessarily find the Democrats to be the cure-all for this, even if they get the Senate and hold the House in '22 there still needs to be a serious fire under their asses to get some positive change coming. But, of the two parties, they're the only ones who are ever gonna give a shit about me, people like me, the people I love, and America at large, and for folks who try to deflect criticisms of Trump, I honestly don't have the first idea what they think they're defending. Him or the Republicans that enabled him from Day 1.
|
So, since we circled back to the whole MMT topic, I do have a side question for anyone who happens to know:
A lot of what I read online cites Bernie Sanders as one of the big major candidates that advocate for MMT. I know a lot of the big-name progressives have MMT-like aspects to their policy proposals, but Sanders in particular seems like a much bigger tax-and-spend kind of guy than a print-and-spend one. His platform appears to reflect as much, with most everything funded by a "wealth tax." Anyone have any info that shows why all the online sources say he's an MMT-er?
|
On November 19 2020 07:28 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves. This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires. You can even exclude the billionaire talk and that plan would get my vote. I’d even entertain and higher tax on goods and services. I just want 100% of my earned money to go to me . I want the social security tax removed too.
Saying its "your" earned money when you are protected by the US government and use its utilities is childish. You shouldn't need to feel like you're doing everything on your own. There is no shame in being a part of a collective.
|
Consumption taxes are also highly regressive and are thus generally only efficient and non-punitive when levied on luxuries and non-essentials.
|
On November 19 2020 08:16 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we circled back to the whole MMT topic, I do have a side question for anyone who happens to know:
A lot of what I read online cites Bernie Sanders as one of the big major candidates that advocate for MMT. I know a lot of the big-name progressives have MMT-like aspects to their policy proposals, but Sanders in particular seems like a much bigger tax-and-spend kind of guy than a print-and-spend one. His platform appears to reflect as much, with most everything funded by a "wealth tax." Anyone have any info that shows why all the online sources say he's an MMT-er?
Not sure. AOC, who I think is more relevant than Sanders due to their respective ages, is explicitly a MMT person, and she's basically his... Disciple? Not sure what to call that relationship. She's written policies like the GND that are based around it. I got cut off in the last thread when this came up, but her tax increases on the wealthy are not because she thinks them necessary to pay for a better safety net; they are because she thinks wealth inequality needs to be reduced.
Much of the criticism of Bernie in the primaries was that his health care plan seemed impossible purely because it was not going to be covered by his proposed tax increases. So there's a fair amount of evidence that he's a believer in MMT, at least implicitly
|
Anyone who advocates for a government which does the absolute minimum possible should consider listening to this podcast. It talks about the value in abolishing a great number of social programs, social services and how people may be better off simply not paying taxes and running their own show.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5QcunwTzqQhDfG0MneMSWB?si=-mJpOtJtTM6h7SOFV3AsJA
The basic thought process of this podcast tries to defend the idea of anarchy and lays out thought experiments around how an anarchist society may actually go about functioning. In my eyes, it doesn't work out. But for the libertarians around here, I challenge you to listen to this podcast and tell me why this is better than what we currently have.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
On November 19 2020 08:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 07:28 BisuDagger wrote:On November 19 2020 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves. This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires. You can even exclude the billionaire talk and that plan would get my vote. I’d even entertain and higher tax on goods and services. I just want 100% of my earned money to go to me . I want the social security tax removed too. Saying its "your" earned money when you are protected by the US government and use its utilities is childish. You shouldn't need to feel like you're doing everything on your own. There is no shame in being a part of a collective.
Calling me childish is the exact reason why people like me never want to share our opinions and why your side doesn't speak to the poor white people who relate to Trumpism. Regarding Income Tax, Income tax wasn't a thing until the late 1800's. Are you asserting that people up to that point were childish. And maybe they did feel that they had to do everything own. I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing, but I'm not trying to have that debate.
I have no problem paying taxes to the government. I just have a problem with the form in which I'm taxed. In my statement, I said I was willing to contribute to it in a way that made sense to me and alluded to the fair tax system is an alternative I'd be willing to entertain. It doesn't have to be the fair tax system, their are a lot of good alternatives that allow me to have control over when my money is taxed by the government.
My point in my previous post though was just to agree with you. Lowering Income Taxes is a great way to relate to fiscal conservatives. It immediately got my attention.
|
On November 19 2020 08:56 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2020 08:34 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2020 07:28 BisuDagger wrote:On November 19 2020 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On November 19 2020 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2020 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think democrats are totally screwed if they can't find a way to make a compelling case to poor white people that their policies are better than Trumpism. Which is why they should just stop taxing poor people because deficits don’t matter and tax cuts are an end in of themselves. This would be a great democrat proposal: No more taxes for people making less than $60k per year or $120k families. Budget neutral by taxing billionaires. You can even exclude the billionaire talk and that plan would get my vote. I’d even entertain and higher tax on goods and services. I just want 100% of my earned money to go to me . I want the social security tax removed too. Saying its "your" earned money when you are protected by the US government and use its utilities is childish. You shouldn't need to feel like you're doing everything on your own. There is no shame in being a part of a collective. Calling me childish is the exact reason why people like me never want to share our opinions and why your side doesn't speak to the poor white people who relate to Trumpism. Regarding Income Tax, Income tax wasn't a thing until the late 1800's. Are you asserting that people up to that point were childish. And maybe they did feel that they had to do everything own. I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing, but I'm not trying to have that debate. I have no problem paying taxes to the government. I just have a problem with the form in which I'm taxed. In my statement, I said I was willing to contribute to it in a way that made sense to me and alluded to the fair tax system is an alternative I'd be willing to entertain. It doesn't have to be the fair tax system, their are a lot of good alternatives that allow me to have control over when my money is taxed by the government. My point in my previous post though was just to agree with you. Lowering Income Taxes is a great way to relate to fiscal conservatives. It immediately got my attention.
It seems like I misunderstood your position so I apologize. It sounded like you were alluding to "taxation is theft" but I understand more clearly now. I think anarchy'ish libertarianism is childish but just wanting low taxes is not. Sorry.
People weren't childish, we just weren't ambitious enough yet. Compare the living standards of the 1800s to today, its insane. Society has always found ways to work together in more effective ways and eventually put a man on the moon. Our government and contributions to WW2 were a result of collectivism, not isolationism. We came together and did a great thing.
More broadly speaking, it sounds like you want more influence over the specifics of how you are taxed. The US adult population is around 225 million. I think it is very challenging to have everyone agree on which taxes are or are not appropriate. Another thing to consider is that while you may be totally capable of managing your own health insurance or retirement, a wildly huge % of people are not. When these people fall through the cracks, society ends up spending more money on caring for them than if they just taxed YOU to begin with. The best example of this is emergency room visits without insurance. A poor single mother who ends up in the ER without insurance will never pay that $300,000 bill for spending a week in ICU. That bill ends up being paid by tax payers, never her.
I don't know if you ever grew up in a poor neighborhood, but I have and I assure you there are SO many people who are simply beyond helping. There is no mechanism of them becoming responsible, good people. Letting them trip won't let them learn how to run. They will just trip forever. Not all poor people are like this, but its important to know many are.
My wife and I make a comfortable living and will not rely on social security to retire. Social security and insurance programs save me money by not allowing poor people to become a bigger detriment to my paycheck. Whether its homeless old people or non-insured ending up in ICU, the poor falling through the cracks costs MORE for me than just taxing people and keeping those folks afloat. They will never improve. The culture is too ingrained and their entire community isn't properly educated. Paying into social security saves individuals money by not paying for something much worse when old poor people can't work anymore.
Even if it made my paycheck worse, I would still support these things. But it is important to note that even entirely selfishly speaking, I save money by paying into social security and Oregon's various healthcare assistance programs that I will never need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
