|
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 December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same.
Absolutely fucking not.
|
|
|
On December 07 2020 05:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. Absolutely fucking not.
a bad joke really.
any half way decent or even corrupt politician would have dealt better with covid - no matter the party. we have reached the point of criminal negligence to be frank, and Trump is so far up his own ass that his priority is fighting election results he does not like over upholding his oath of office because of ego and the opportunity of running another grift.
|
I can't believe the Grifting team still has any momentum at all with close to a million covid-19 cases a week. The US is not the only country with problems, but a president who is refusing to try to manage the situation and holding rallies which are certainly worsening an already dire situation in hospitals should not be forgiven by any voter.
Hopefully we will get a break from Guliani now, the ranks of die-hard Trump allies are fortunately thinning out.
How far can Trump stretch the patience of the GOP? Will he destroy the party on his way out?
|
On December 07 2020 07:19 Slydie wrote:I can't believe the Grifting team still has any momentum at all with close to a million covid-19 cases a week. The US is not the only country with problems, but a president who is refusing to try to manage the situation and holding rallies which are certainly worsening an already dire situation in hospitals should not be forgiven by any voter. Hopefully we will get a break from Guliani now, the ranks of die-hard Trump allies are fortunately thinning out. How far can Trump stretch the patience of the GOP? Will he destroy the party on his way out? The stories of people denying Covid as they as dieing from it in the hospital should tell you how likely these people are to see the error of their ways.
|
Arguably he destroyed the party on his way in (or the Gop destroyed itself during Obama and he profited). It is/was just staggering to see how they didn't even give a fuck and went full on comic book villain.
|
I don't know how he could destroy a party that has so thoroughly embraced lying, hypocrisy and ruthlessness in pursuing its goals. At this point, some honesty and decency would have a greater chance of destroying the GOP than more of Trump and his ilk.
|
On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards.
The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 07 2020 05:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. Absolutely fucking not.
Nah, you're wrong.
|
On December 07 2020 08:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 05:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. Absolutely fucking not. Nah, you're wrong.
Agreed. Hillary is fucking awful. She's not as bad as Trump, but she still would have been a net negative for the average person in this country. I don't have much faith in Biden other than to have a better coronavirus response than Trump. I'm afraid the same problems this country has had for decades will be further perpetuated under Biden just as they were under Trump, just at a less extreme degree. Obviously, I'd like to be proven wrong, but Biden's history as a politician leaves me with little confidence.
|
On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire?
Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one.
|
On December 07 2020 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire? Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one.
The message seems to be that the proletariat should be grateful for whatever table scraps the bourgeoisie deign to leave for them. Even if they're poisoned.
|
|
|
Leoffler just sounds like a robot. How many times is she going to say 'Radical Liberal'
|
On December 07 2020 09:14 IyMoon wrote:Leoffler just sounds like a robot. How many times is she going to say 'Radical Liberal'
There's literally no such thing lol.
|
On December 07 2020 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire? Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one.
Much like "temporary" tax increases, I expect future congresses to extend the expiration ... because (newsflash) the working class like their tax cuts.
Also +1 for responding to questions about why Jeff Bezos means they can't be happy with a tangent that addresses nothing.
|
On December 07 2020 09:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire? Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one. Much like "temporary" tax increases, I expect future congresses to extend the expiration ... because (newsflash) the working class like their tax cuts. Also +1 for responding to questions about why Jeff Bezos means they can't be happy with a tangent that addresses nothing. And I expect the Republicans to fight tooth and nail to prevent that 'disasterous' increase in the deficit.
And then blame the Democrats for the taxes going up.
Its been a while but I think the exact same thing happened with the Bush temporary tax cuts no?
ps. I don't care about Bezos, I was just responding to the conversation happening by quoting the latest post in the discussion. But since you asked, the poor should not be paying for tax cuts for the rich. That is so ass backwards it defies logic. And the rich certainly don't need to pay less taxes.
|
On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post.
Well at least now you know how much of the rest of the thread feels in discussion with you on almost any topic.
|
On December 07 2020 09:14 IyMoon wrote:Leoffler just sounds like a robot. How many times is she going to say 'Radical Liberal'
Geez and that evil smirk while telling lie after lie.
|
On December 07 2020 09:40 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 09:14 IyMoon wrote:Leoffler just sounds like a robot. How many times is she going to say 'Radical Liberal' Geez and that evil smirk while telling lie after lie.
How would you rate it compared to McConnell's evil laugh after admitting to Tucker Carlsen that he did everything possible to sabotage Obama from appointing court justices?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
