|
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 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote:
it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now.
You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything.
Let me ask you this, in a clear way:
1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats?
2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower?
And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do?
|
On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote:
it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do?
You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes.
You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars.
I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans.
And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility.
|
United States42004 Posts
On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote:
it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes.
This lie is egregious enough to merit its own specific response as a CPA. In the vast majority of years nothing structurally changes in the tax code. There are the yearly bracket changes and there are some rate changes like with the Bush cuts but those normally have sunset clauses built in. But there have basically only been two broad sweeping reforms to the tax code in our lifetimes, 1986 and 2017 by Reagan and Trump respectively. You will have spent most of your life under the Reagan tax code which was in effect until it was superseded by the Trump tax code. The Democrats have had essentially no authorship in the tax code.
Please feel free to explain the exemptions and tax loopholes you feel the Democrats are responsible for. Or, if you don't wish to do so, feel free to retract that ridiculous attempt to conjure a "gotcha" out of pure ignorance.
while giving them the SALT
The SALT deduction is just not paying taxes on the taxes you already paid and it was such an obvious and logical inclusion to the tax code that it was part of the Revenue Act of 1913 that established Federal income taxes. Or did you mean Woodrow Wilson when you said that it was a Democrat insertion into the tax code?
alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals
This is literally what the AMT does. The AMT basically says "the tax code is complex and open to exploitation, usually by exploiting these specific deductions so let's make people recalculate what their tax owed would be without those deductions and if it's clear that they're abusing them then they have to just pay a simple progressive tax on their income". You write a list of tax things that you identify as issues and then you group the AMT, which is the disallowing of the things you wrote, as part of that list and then you say that they should all be replaced with what the AMT already does. It's abundantly clear that you have literally no clue what you're talking about here.
|
United States10047 Posts
On December 22 2020 20:00 Zambrah wrote:
This is always what happens when you have to appease Republicans, they will systematically fuck up anything you try to do the most outrageously awful shit. I'm almost glad the stimulus payment is so paltry so theres fewer ways to defend this... thing.
In his defense, Klobuchar was the first one who tried to get something similar to this back in 2011 I believe.
|
Norway28561 Posts
Danglars, a more precise question: Do you think the wealthy make too much compared to the poor in the US today? I know you said you didn't favor redistribution as a social good and that you don't want more taxes and that you don't want the government to be more involved in running the economy. But I feel like you kinda dodged the implied 'is inequality too high in the US today'- question. 
|
On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote:
it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes. You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars. I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans. And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility.
So let me try to understand what you are saying:
You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts.
May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires?
|
This is a great article for anyone interested in politics. I hope the left finds a new direction for itself.
User was warned for this post.
|
So uh, Trump just shot down the relief bill, demanding 2000 or 4000 dollar payments to Americans.
Good on Trump? I suspect there's some corrupt angle he's working at, but I really don't see it at an immediate glance (the current bill already directly paid millions to current and former presidents).
I'm sure Democrats will be on board, so this is gonna get weird.
“I’m asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple,” “Send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package.”
And of course he couldn't resist adding in one more lunatic claim, though it's a lot more tempered than usual:
“And maybe that administration will be me.”
Note:
He's threatening to veto, but has not actually vetoed. Here's the video.
Pelosi has already said OK :
|
On December 23 2020 07:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:Danglars, a more precise question: Do you think the wealthy make too much compared to the poor in the US today? I know you said you didn't favor redistribution as a social good and that you don't want more taxes and that you don't want the government to be more involved in running the economy. But I feel like you kinda dodged the implied 'is inequality too high in the US today'- question.
I'm not overly interested in the inequality metric as a thing unto itself. The extreme, extreme poverty alongside wealth, think Brazilian estates next to slums (favelas), would be the time that I'd sign on to the metric. But the poor in the country do not necessarily do worse just because the top billionaires earned an extra 10% this year from next. Vice versa, a lot of poor countries have very little inequality, and misery is commonplace. I want to look at the state of the poor independent on how the rich are doing; how is access to health care, housing, food, jobs, education, and all that. If those metrics are gaining, but inequality also rises, I will celebrate for the improved quality of life for the poor. If the poor lose access to health care, cannot afford housing, have trouble finding food, are mostly unemployed, with terrible schools and colleges, but if inequality goes down across the board, I'm still saddened by the quality of life for the poor.
It aint a zero-sum game and I think the debate on that basis distorts the real issues.
|
Don't care at this point whos to blame, just raise the amount above 600 gogo
|
On December 23 2020 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 05:11 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:35 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:On December 23 2020 04:08 Danglars wrote:On December 23 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2020 23:08 ugohome wrote:
it's not just republicans to blame for the broken corpo-fascist US government of the wealthy.
When one group does something "100" and another group does something "10", it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same thing. Citizens United and various other examples point to the republican party empowering large corporations and moneyed interests in a clearly greater way. Democratic politicians are just as corrupt and the bill has about the same pork and special interest rules changes from them. You put far too much stock in Democratic relative purity. Remember for next time myself or others criticize the Democrats, and the thread tries to distance itself from those politicians. When push comes to shove, they stan for their political party. "Corrupt" needs defining here. My point is relating to empowering the wealthy and large corporations. You can't pretend Democrats and Republicans want large corporations and banks to be the same amount of powerful or have the same morals regarding limiting their power. Can you point me towards major republican politicians speaking against the ethics of billionaires? Publicly funded campaigns? Have you seen the billions that Silicon Valley has been plowing into Democratic campaigns? And how much they’re spending on lobbyists? The rhetoric is just a ruse; Democrats will carve the same exemptions and policy that they’re lobbying for, while making overtures to the public on closing loopholes and sticking it to big business.You better drop the 100-10 talk, because it basically consists of claiming Democrats farts don’t stink as bad. Spend some time looking at the stimulus/covid bill and ask yourself what share of the bill is really Republican pork and changes. As if the problem in Washington is really the words that come out of politicians mouths; cmon now. You need to understand that when you say things like this, people don't accept it. It isn't as simple as you saying something and suddenly it is true. You are making vague allusions to various things and not really saying anything. Let me ask you this, in a clear way: 1. Do you think Republican politicians generally support higher taxes for billionaires? How does this support compare to Democrats? 2. Do you think support for Citizens United is generally higher among Republican politicians than Democrats? Or lower? And just out of curiosity, 3. Do you think billionaires should pay higher taxes than they currently do? You’re pivoting again, because this isn’t about the vocal support or citizens United (as much about the first amendment as anything else; and Democrats would love to have more of a monopoly on media corporations, while preventing other corps getting their message out). Democrats are the kings at giving the great speeches wanting higher taxes for billionaires. They’re the same ones meeting with lobbyists to carve out the new exemptions and tax loopholes from the new taxes. You’re also relying on the crutch of tax cuts as a proxy for who’s beholden to big business. You think the tax burden on companies are not passed down eventually to the consumers? You think tax raises are the prime mechanism to prove you’re with the common man against billionaires? Ha! The tax code should be simplified and all the complex schemes of separate excise taxes and capital gains taxes and social security taxes and corporate income taxes and estate taxes and alternate minimum taxes should be rolled into a progressive tax rate on individuals. It’s through the machinations of the Democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths (and a certain amount of Republican politicians as well) that these things are necessary. When it becomes too complicated to file but for hordes of accountants; that isn’t a triumph over billionaires—that’s a way to give them the same tax burden with a nominal tax increase while profiting from their dollars. I basically reject your faulty premises Mohdoo. You’re smart enough to know that conservatives don’t view redistribution as a societal good or government as the proper means to run an economy or major economic sector. It might be easier to acknowledge that you’re basing arguments on fallacious roots (what someone on the right would call framing the questions in ways that only allow for one proper answer). I’d twist it back around, and ask you if you will always give Democrats credit for talking tough on taxing the rich, while giving them the SALT and offshoring and all the comforts they’re used to asking and receiving from Democrats in every bill. Hell, it was in Pelosi’s trillion dollar COVID bill itself! I give them no credit; I know how the game is played. They’re bought and paid for politicians just like many Republicans. And you should know by now, it’s not about what the left leaning members of this thread will accept. I’ve already seen billions in property damage across many urban areas, and very few accept more than “mostly peaceful protests” and “Antifa is an idea, not groups.” I’m after the truth, not what people in this ideological collection are prepared to accept at the moment. You can all kill industry and blame the right at each failure up to the moment of poverty, and until your dying breath, refusing to accept responsibility. So let me try to understand what you are saying: You are saying that Democrats don't actually want to make billionaires less powerful? And the evidence of this is that democrats supposedly create loop holes for specific billionaires? So while Democrats advocate for eliminating tax breaks for large corporations and billionaires, they have some sort of system of preferring specific billionaires? You haven't really substantiated that, but I am just trying to make sure I am at least following your thoughts. May I ask what sorts of things you see Republicans as doing to make billionaires less powerful? What is on the Republican agenda aimed at reducing the power of billionaires?
Nope. A minority of Democrats are actually true believers. The rest will happily accept lobbyist dollars to raise taxes while carving exemptions for the big corps that matter. This is the way it's been for decades now. How do you think big business got those exemptions in the first place? Bipartisan agreement to say one thing to the voters and another to corporate lobbyists.
Look at any major policy law affecting the tax code in the last four decades. Look at the party affiliation of who voted for it. It wasn't Republican administrations and congressmen making the listed tax rate and the effective tax rate so disparate (and for the record, I'm not talking about the depreciation and the like).
You're just insufficiently cynical about politicians.
|
If this is all theater for Trump to be the one who gets the credit for stimulus checks, then he campaigns in Georgia, both seats easily go to republicans. I’m not sure that’s what their plan has been all along, but if it is, it’s GG. That would totally be the end of democrats taking Georgia. My gut tells me he signs it anyway and pretends he wishes they got more, but Pelosi already saying she will sign 2000 makes that less of a great strategy for republicans. Now if McConnell says no, it is the most clear possible argument against republicans taking the senate. Everyone is pissed about 600. If Trump and pelosi agree to 2000 and republicans majority in the senate is the only thing getting in the way, that is horrible for their Georgia campaign.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If he really cared about it, he would've brought this up before the bill was signed and sent to him. Pretty sure if he vetos Congress will override the veto rather than go back and relitigate it.
If he's a proper jerk, he'll go straight for the pocket veto, which would be fun.
|
On December 23 2020 11:52 LegalLord wrote:
If he really cared about it, he would've brought this up before the bill was signed and sent to him. Pretty sure if he vetos Congress will override the veto rather than go back and relitigate it.
If he's a proper jerk, he'll go straight for the pocket veto, which would be fun.
Isn’t this way better for him as a way to get credit for it? Let senate and house finish up, say best they’ll do is 600, then Trump triples it? Viewed purely for his own sake, this would be an unbelievably giant victory for Trump. And Georgia wouldn’t even be close.
|
|
|
I'm just surprised he is taking time out from his efforts to overturn the election.
|
On December 23 2020 12:59 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm just surprised he is taking time out from his efforts to overturn the election.
Any remote chance he has at this point would rely on extremely widespread public support. I think if he landed 2000 checks he’d end his presidency with 55% approval
|
On December 23 2020 13:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2020 12:59 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm just surprised he is taking time out from his efforts to overturn the election. Any remote chance he has at this point would rely on extremely widespread public support. I think if he landed 2000 checks he’d end his presidency with 55% approval
There's no world in which he could pass 50% approval.
That said, yes, it would be a notably popular move to end his term with.
|
Jesus, if we actually GET the 2,000 dollar stimulus checks and Biden stops it I think I'm going to be in a position where I prefer Trump to Biden.
Makes me a little sick to think about, but I guess thats the fuckin' world we live in huh.
I imagine Trump is coming out about this for a combination of two reasons, 1. hes tired of being wrangled by people he thinks are incompetent/betraying him, 2. he wants to have a somewhat not wretched gouged out scar of a legacy.
|
In no way do I prefer Trump to Biden, except in some hypothetical where he acts as sufficient accelerate to really aggravate people to making changes. I don't think we're gonna get any more in that regard than we've already seen. Sending out an actually meaningful relief check is the least he can do at this point. It's uncharacteristically good for Trump, but let's not pretend he had nothing to do with the fire getting this big in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
