The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

GTPlanet Exit Poll - Which Presidential Ticket Did You Vote For?

  • Trump/Pence

    Votes: 16 27.1%
  • Biden/Harris

    Votes: 20 33.9%
  • Jorgensen/Cohen

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • Hawkins/Walker

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • La Riva/Freeman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • De La Fuente/Richardson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blankenship/Mohr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carroll/Patel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simmons/Roze

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles/Wallace

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 25.4%

  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
4,464
United States
Azle, TX
supermanfromazle
SanjiHimura
Looking into our crystal ball, it is time to discuss the future of our country again. The fate of us, the voter, directly effects by our choices in the leaders that we select.

Polling Policy: Any polls that are on the OP until the nominees are decided will be recycled twice a month (usually on the first and 15th). After the nominees are decided, or the conventions of both parties have taken place (whichever is earlier), both a Hypothetical Presidential poll and Trump's Job Approval numbers will be updated weekly (on Friday).

Also note that as with the last election thread, I will keep a metric on the US House with a Republican X and a Democrat Y poll that will be updated weekly when the poll is available on Real Clear Politics. Please keep in mind that this will not reflect your voting district, and you should keep your local news sources on hand if you wish to keep track of your local races.


Here is what is up for grabs this election cycle

The United States Presidency

Republican:
President Donald J. Trump
Vice President Mike Pence

(in 2016, President Trump won 27 States with 276 Electoral Votes)

Democrat (Candidates):
Cory Booker (49 years of age) (Feb. 1st, 2019)
Julian Castro (44 years of age) (Jan. 12th, 2019)
John Delaney (55 years of age) (July 28th, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (37 years of age) (Jan. 11th, 2019)
Kamala Harris (54 years of age) (Jan. 21st, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (69 years of age) (Feb. 9th, 2019)

In addition, as many as 200 people have either filed or formed exploratory committees to run for President as a Democrat.

Libertarian (candidates):
Adam Kokesh (37 years of age) (July 18th, 2013)
Arvin Vohra (39 years of age) (July 3rd, 2018)

In addition, US Rep. Justin Amash has publically expressed interest in running as a libertarian.

Independent/other parties
Candidates to note:
Green Party co-founder Howie Hawkins
Former Govenor of Minnesota Jessie Ventura
Akon (the rapper)
Mark Cuban (Owner of the Dallas Mavericks)
Howard Schultz (Former chairman of Starbucks)


Conventions:
Republican: August 24-27 in Charlotte, NC
Democrat: July 13-16 in a city to be announced.
Libertarian: May 22-25 in Austin, TX

Debates:
TBA

United States Senate

Current Balance of Power:
Democrat: 45
Republican: 53
Independent 2

Not up for election:
Democrat: 33
Republican: 31
Independent: 2

Up for election:
Democrat: 12
Republican: 20 (1 is a special Election to finish Sen. John McCain's term)
Open Seats: 2

SHIFT: Democrats need 4 seats at best to flip the Senate.

States up for grabs:
Alabama (Doug Jones)
Alaska (Dan Sullivan)
Arizona (Martha McSally) (Special Election)
Arkansas (Tom Cotton)
Colorado (Cory Gardner)
Delaware (Chris Coons)
Georgia (David Perdue)
Idaho (Jim Risch)
Illinois (Dick Durbin)
Iowa (Joni Ernst)
Kansas (Pat Roberts) (retiring)
Kentucky (Mitch McConnell)
Louisiana (Bill Cassidy)
Maine (Susan Collins)
Michigan (Gary Peters)
Minnesota (Tina Smith)
Mississippi (Cindy Hyde-Smith)
Montana (Steve Daines)
Nebraska (Ben Sasse)
New Hampshire (Jeanne Shaheen)
New Jersey (Cory Booker)
New Mexico (Tom Udall)
North Carolina (Thom Tillis)
Oklahoma (Jim Inhofe)
Oregon (Jeff Merkley)
Rhode Island (Jack Reed)
South Carolina (Lindsey Graham)
South Dakota (Mike Rounds)
Tennessee (Lamar Alexander)
Texas (John Cornyn)
Virginia (Mark Warner)
West Virginia (Shelley Moore Capito)
Wyoming (Mike Enzi)

The United States House of Representatives

Seats up for grabs: 435 (198 Republicans, 235 Democrats, 0 Independents and 2 vacancies)

The Balance of Power
198 Republicans
235 Democrats
0 Independents
2 Vacancies
Shift:

Governorships:

Total States: 11
Republican: 6
Democrats: 3
Open Seats: 2 (1 Republican and 1 Democrat)

Delaware (John Carney)
Indiana (Eric Holcomb)
Missouri (Mike Parson)
New Hampshire (Chris Sununu)
North Carolina (Roy Cooper)
North Dakota (Doug Burgum)
Vermont (Phil Scott)
Washington (Jay Inslee)
West Virginia (Jim Justice)

Montana's Governor Steve Bullock is Term-Limited while Utah's Gary Herbert is retiring.

Polls:

Trump's Approval Numbers:
Approve: 43.6%
Disapprove: 53.6%
Spread: 10%

Democrat Primary:
Biden: 32.8%
Sanders: 12.3%
No other candidate breached 10% of the vote
Source: RCP Averages
 
Last edited:

Dotini

Premium
15,140
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
I was off at fencing class during the State of the Union speech, but Trump laid down this marker:

"Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," Trump declared.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a democratic socialist, reacted with this facial expression when Trump announced the U.S. will never be a socialist nation:
DysWTBWWoAc1kVa.jpg

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...we_were_born_free_and_we_shall_stay_free.html

Many of the prospective Democrat candidates are extreme leftists and would attempt to legislate a socialist future for the US. A handful of the Democrats are not so sure, and neither is the prospective Independent, Schultz.

So the first big question is "Will the Democrats go populist/socialist, or will they go centrist in a bid to scoop up Independents and Republicans unhappy with Trump?"
 
4,464
United States
Azle, TX
supermanfromazle
SanjiHimura
Leftist Grandaughter.jpg


The same with Gabbard. She didn't even give a visible reaction to anything that Trump said during the SOTU address tonight.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
View attachment 797614

The same with Gabbard. She didn't even give a visible reaction to anything that Trump said during the SOTU address tonight.
AOC is the Democrat’s Trump. She speaks with the same attitude on Twitter, has over the top ideas, and gets called out for exaggerating claims. She certainly wasn’t happy when CNN fact checked her next to Trump.

As for Gabbard, she doesn’t like Trump, either. But, she is open to meeting both parties in the middle.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
It's factually wrong that Bernie is a democratic socialist even though he uses the term, Social Democrat is the correct term as he doesn't want to remove the market economy, just restrict it, similar with Gabbard.

AOC is someone who would be a Democratic Socialist, but she probably has no idea what that means, but she can't run so that doesn't matter(she doesn't come close to the age requirement).
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
It's factually wrong that Bernie is a democratic socialist even though he uses the term, Social Democrat is the correct term as he doesn't want to remove the market economy, just restrict it,

As already pointed out to you a few days ago there's little agreement amongst self-identified democratic socialists about the exact definition of the term and the differences between theoretical and practical implementations. I hear what you're sayng but it isn't necessarily so.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
As already pointed out to you a few days ago there's little agreement amongst self-identified democratic socialists about the exact definition of the term and the differences between theoretical and practical implementations. I hear what you're sayng but it isn't necessarily so.
But it's pretty simple, are they for a market economy or not the primary difference is that.
 
952
Belgium
Belgium
I was off at fencing class during the State of the Union speech, but Trump laid down this marker:

"Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country," Trump declared.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a democratic socialist, reacted with this facial expression when Trump announced the U.S. will never be a socialist nation:
DysWTBWWoAc1kVa.jpg

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...we_were_born_free_and_we_shall_stay_free.html

Many of the prospective Democrat candidates are extreme leftists and would attempt to legislate a socialist future for the US. A handful of the Democrats are not so sure, and neither is the prospective Independent, Schultz.

So the first big question is "Will the Democrats go populist/socialist, or will they go centrist in a bid to scoop up Independents and Republicans unhappy with Trump?"

You call out the democrats for being far left?
Under what placeholder should we place the republicans? There are quite a few establishment democrats that are considert centrist right wing in flanders.

And our left still isn't radical or extreme, why would you ever consider the democrats even Bernie to be extreme. (I don't know anything about AOC so I'm kot refering to her)

I still don't find a left enough party for myself to vote for in flanders.

As already pointed out to you a few days ago there's little agreement amongst self-identified democratic socialists about the exact definition of the term and the differences between theoretical and practical implementations. I hear what you're sayng but it isn't necessarily so.

Doesn't matter the ideas Bernie proposes have always been called in political studies you might not want to call it that way but it only matters what they advocate.

I see american call people like obama a communist. When you call a neoliberal a communist it shows no left exists doesn't it?
 

Dotini

Premium
15,140
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
I still don't find a left enough party for myself to vote for in flanders.
Flanders (flinders?), isn't that like the stuff between the toes of elephants, constantly trapped in the melodrama of the Great Powers? You are owed whatever ideological consolation you have available to you.
 
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur


Donors are going to hate her, no doubt she will be smeared as working for the Russians as that seems to be the MSM main smear tactic.
 

Keef

Premium
22,596
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
AOC is the Democrat’s Trump. She speaks with the same attitude on Twitter, has over the top ideas, and gets called out for exaggerating claims. She certainly wasn’t happy when CNN fact checked her next to Trump.
I didn't watch the thing but do you have examples of these "over the top ideas"?

Several potential Democratic candidates are as far left as Trump is right, for sure. And their roads are paved with good intentions. But Trump's roads are just paved with bad intentions, straight up, no shame.

As much as I know about basic economics, the US wealth disparity is heading quickly for Russia-like oligarchical separation. Seems like every month a new report comes out about how America's billionaires have gained billions more, while everybody else either gets nothing or gets poorer. That's par for the course here in Ohio. Corporations buying corporations, consolidating operations, taking efficiency to such an extreme that they're minimizing realistic differences and are forming monopolies-by-any-other-name, and they're getting Republican tax cuts to do it. It's a crock of bull and it's been going the wrong direction for a very long time, and lately has been getting more wrong even quicker.

Corporations can no longer be trusted to work in concert with their customers via investment and markets, because the investors consist exclusively of the ultra-wealthy, while the markets are fixing themselves. Consumers have no options to influence anything if they even cared to. Corporatism is stronger than ever before, with companies quick to sell out and downsize and lay off and eschew quality in an attempt to constantly raise share prices.

I invest as well and I don't give a crap about increasing share prices, I give a crap about stability. Billionaires are the complete opposite. They're wealthy enough to risk a lot on enormous payouts. 95% of America can't afford that, yet have no power to stabilize the economy because they have nothing to invest.

I'm going to take all my libertarian logic and reason nonsense and set it aside in a nice little box because it'll never happen in my lifetime anyway, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure Russublicans lose their ass in 2020. We already have a half-ass single-party system anyway so we might as well send it, but at least send it in a direction that doesn't have Russia controlling our politicians. I'm going to do an unusual combination of saving money, buying guns, and voting for anybody but Republicans.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
I didn't watch the thing but do you have examples of these "over the top ideas"?
Taxing a person who made over $10 million, 70% on every dollar made after the $10,000,000th looks to be her biggest work of art to date.

But, as with most of her statements, she hasn't actually done any work behind it.
First off, Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t released a tax plan, or even much of a detailed proposal. There is no bill, and even if there was one featuring a 70% tax rate on the rich, it is hard to imagine it passing into law.
But she doesn’t state exactly who should pay more in taxes or specify what income levels would face higher tax rates. Again, there is no real plan. All she said is that decades ago, tax rates on the ultra-rich were much higher than they are now.
There are so many unknowns that it’s difficult to predict how much Ocasio-Cortez’s tax on the rich would or could generate.

Tax experts consulted by the Washington Post say that a 70% on income over $10 million could theoretically bring in an additional $72 billion per year in taxes, or $720 billion over a decade. That would be nearly enough to cover Bernie Sanders’ plan to provide tuition-free college, estimated at a cost of $800 billion, for instance.

However, “the real number is probably smaller than that, because wealthy Americans would probably find ways around paying this much-higher tax,” the Post notes.
http://money.com/money/5495760/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rate-rich/

Another idea founded without actually reading....
"$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained.’ $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before our premiums."
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, "$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon."

The comparison is specious. In fact, the data suggests that the Pentagon hasn’t spent $21 trillion in the entire history of the United States.

Rather, the $21 trillion figure refers to a collection of transactions in which the same dollar could have been transferred between internal accounts multiple times. As such, it’s comparing apples and oranges to say that "Pentagon accounting errors" would have been equivalent to two-thirds of Medicare for All’s projected 10-year costs.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-scale-pentagon-acco/

Here's another "good" thought she had.
Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Cooper: But being factually correct is important—
Here's the thing: Being factually accurate and morally right isn't an either/or situation. You can do both!

And as it relates to the broader point Ocasio-Cortez is raising, which is, essentially, you know what I meant, so stop obsessing over a single data point, I would respond this way: Would she -- or any Democrat -- say the same about the White House's made-up fact that upwards of 4,000 known or suspected terrorists have attempted to enter the US illegally through the southern border?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-facts/index.html

Several potential Democratic candidates are as far left as Trump is right, for sure. And their roads are paved with good intentions. But Trump's roads are just paved with bad intentions, straight up, no shame.
Whatever her intentions are, she's still Trump's equivalent in her mannerisms. She makes bold statements without fact checking, she tweets with the same tone as Trump, and in general, she makes herself as much a joke to the Right as Trump is to the Left. And best of all, she's got as much political experience as he does.
 
Last edited:
5,785
Simcoeace
I didn't watch the thing but do you have examples of these "over the top ideas"?

Several potential Democratic candidates are as far left as Trump is right, for sure. And their roads are paved with good intentions. But Trump's roads are just paved with bad intentions, straight up, no shame.

As much as I know about basic economics, the US wealth disparity is heading quickly for Russia-like oligarchical separation. Seems like every month a new report comes out about how America's billionaires have gained billions more, while everybody else either gets nothing or gets poorer. That's par for the course here in Ohio. Corporations buying corporations, consolidating operations, taking efficiency to such an extreme that they're minimizing realistic differences and are forming monopolies-by-any-other-name, and they're getting Republican tax cuts to do it. It's a crock of bull and it's been going the wrong direction for a very long time, and lately has been getting more wrong even quicker.

Corporations can no longer be trusted to work in concert with their customers via investment and markets, because the investors consist exclusively of the ultra-wealthy, while the markets are fixing themselves. Consumers have no options to influence anything if they even cared to. Corporatism is stronger than ever before, with companies quick to sell out and downsize and lay off and eschew quality in an attempt to constantly raise share prices.

I invest as well and I don't give a crap about increasing share prices, I give a crap about stability. Billionaires are the complete opposite. They're wealthy enough to risk a lot on enormous payouts. 95% of America can't afford that, yet have no power to stabilize the economy because they have nothing to invest.

I'm going to take all my libertarian logic and reason nonsense and set it aside in a nice little box because it'll never happen in my lifetime anyway, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure Russublicans lose their ass in 2020. We already have a half-ass single-party system anyway so we might as well send it, but at least send it in a direction that doesn't have Russia controlling our politicians. I'm going to do an unusual combination of saving money, buying guns, and voting for anybody but Republicans.

You've come a long way in the last 10 years keef!

Taxing a person who made over $10 million, 70% on every dollar made after the $10,000,000th looks to be her biggest work of art to date.

But, as with most of her statements, she hasn't actually done any work behind it.



http://money.com/money/5495760/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rate-rich/

Another idea founded without actually reading....


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-scale-pentagon-acco/

Here's another "good" thought she had.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-facts/index.html


Whatever her intentions are, she's still Trump's equivalent in her mannerisms. She makes bold statements without fact checking, she tweets with the same tone as Trump, and in general, she makes herself as much a joke to the Right as Trump is to the Left. And best of all, she's got as much political experience as he does.

US politics needs young, committed, people like AOC. It needs people with energy & enthusiasm. Contrary to Fox crew, there's really no "left wing" left in established politics in the US - except Bernie, who got shafted by the DNC. For that matter, the US also needs enthusiastic libertarians who are not hang-ons to the Republican party - it needs anybody but the old business-as-usual, corporatist stooges. AOC is not likely to be dictating government policy any time soon, but her influence make help give some balls to the Democratic party.

AOC like Trump? Not even close. Trump is a terminally corrupt, self-serving narcissist who's never cared about anybody but himself his entire life. His policies are incoherent & regressive, not forward-looking, & worst of all they threaten the hard-won & precarious stability of the "New World Order". This would maybe be acceptable if he had a reasonable idea of what to replace it with, but his idea is chauvinistic nationalism & trickle-down economics - something that's been tried before & failed. We don't need to go back to the 1950's.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
US politics needs young, committed, people like AOC. It needs people with energy & enthusiasm.
You sit and grill Trump at every turn for his silly tweets, yet AOC has "energy & enthusiasm" despite being the same passive-aggressive kind of person with her own Twitter.
but her influence make help give some balls to the Democratic party.
Yeah, that'll work.
“I’m sure Ms. Cortez means well, but there’s almost an outstanding rule: Don’t attack your own people,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). “We just don’t need sniping in our Democratic Caucus.”
Frustrated Democratic lawmakers are offering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez some advice: Cool it.
“Once an election is over and you win, why are you still angry?” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.). “I think it’s a lack of maturity on her part, and a lack of political acumen, for her to be that petty.

“We as Democrats better figure out who the real enemy is. And it’s not each other.”
“She’s carrying on and she ain’t gonna make friends that way,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “Joe conceded, wished her well, said he would support her … so she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.”
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) offered a similar message, saying success in the 435-member House comes slowly — and hinges largely on the ability of lawmakers to forge constructive relationships with other members. Alienating more senior lawmakers within your own party, he warned, will only stifle the ability of Ocasio-Cortez to get anything done — even despite her newfound celebrity.
“She needs to decide: Does she want to be an effective legislator or just continue being a Twitter star?” said one House Democrat who’s in lockstep with Ocasio Cortez’s ideology. “There’s a difference between being an activist and a lawmaker in Congress.”
Some legislators are voicing concerns that Ocasio-Cortez appears set on using her newfound star power to attack Democrats from the left flank, threatening to divide the party — and undermine its chances at retaking the House — in a midterm election year when leaders are scrambling to form a united front against President Trump and Republicans.
Hillary had the experience to at least wait til' after she was beaten to attack her own party. :lol:

AOC like Trump? Not even close. Trump is a terminally corrupt, self-serving narcissist who's never cared about anybody but himself his entire life. His policies are incoherent & regressive, not forward-looking, & worst of all they threaten the hard-won & precarious stability of the "New World Order". This would maybe be acceptable if he had a reasonable idea of what to replace it with, but his idea is chauvinistic nationalism & trickle-down economics - something that's been tried before & failed. We don't need to go back to the 1950's.
It's almost like I didn't say they had similar ideas.... Oh wait, I didn't!
Whatever her intentions are, she's still Trump's equivalent in her mannerisms.
 
Last edited:
9,401
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
I don't see the problem with attacking your own people if you have a big disagreement, what do you think happens in the Party Primary's?

AOC Biggest problem is she doesn't understand her own talking points, and doesn't do the full research, she gets the topic without understanding it.
 

Keef

Premium
22,596
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
Taxing a person who made over $10 million, 70% on every dollar made after the $10,000,000th looks to be her biggest work of art to date.

But, as with most of her statements, she hasn't actually done any work behind it.



http://money.com/money/5495760/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rate-rich/
What she has proposed is a higher marginal tax bracket. The current highest tax bracket is 39% at $500,001. So basically a tenured surgeon at the local hospital who drives a QX60 and refuses to buy his kids helicopter rides on vacation is in the same tax bracket as Beyonce and Jeff Bezos. And I've never done the math but Jeff Bezos seems to be as wealthy as all of America's doctors combined. The interest in one of his savings accounts makes more money than the surgeon in question.

Anyways, it's been well published since she proposed this idea that the most prosperous decades in American history, after WW2, were also decades where the highest tax bracket was at 70%.

Historically, the tax bracket system was much more thoroughly logarithmic than it is now, with double the number of brackets. That's a more fair way to do things. Regardless, the higher brackets were of much higher percentage, and extended much higher into the income range. This Vox chart (scroll to the right) is a pretty glaring example of how the Feds have condensed tax brackets and virtually eliminated taxes on very wealthy people, regardless of political party. I think it's a pretty obvious ploy to centralize wealth in the hands of a few people with power as political donors. Think about allllll the wealthy people enjoying these past few decades of minimal taxes, especially the Reagan years. Now tell me how society has benefited from that. Consumerism has accelerated out of control, sure, but poorer people are more in debt, education still falls behind most of the developed world, our healthcare is the most expensive of the developed world and bankrupts entire families, minorities aren't any more free to explore opportunities, average wage increases haven't kept up with inflation for the past few decades, etc. Meanwhile, the rate of wealth increase for the richest Americans has accelerated rapidly, outpacing middle class wage increases multiple times over, while corporations have consolidated and entered a race of stock prices, while workers get laid off to bolster their bottom lines. This isn't capitalism, this is cronyism, and nothing good has come of it.

AOC's $10,000,001 70% marginal rate would effect a fraction of one percent of the wealthiest people in the country, but would be worth dozens of billions of dollars. Jeff Bezos's wealth increased by forty billion in 2018. Assuming that is W2 income (which it mostly isn't) that alone would've been a tax haul of $28 billion. From a single person. Meanwhile, guys like me are struggling to get their careers started, living in their cousin's basement making $35,000 a year, and it's not from a lack of effort or skill.

As for putting in work on a solution, the lady has been in congress for two months now. That's barely enough time for me to figure out how to cash my PTO.

The "fact check" article itself doesn't provide much in the way of facts. The Pentagon's own explanations of their errors make no sense at all.

I can't argue that everybody should be accountable for the things they say, especially when they've got a public platform.

Whatever her intentions are, she's still Trump's equivalent in her mannerisms. She makes bold statements without fact checking, she tweets with the same tone as Trump, and in general, she makes herself as much a joke to the Right as Trump is to the Left. And best of all, she's got as much political experience as he does.
Ask any woman how to stand out in a room full of men and they'd probably come up with similar answers. Just like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, they have to be loud and pose challenges. That's the only way anybody will pay attention to them. You're a man who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but many women don't see the world that way.

You've come a long way in the last 10 years keef!
I'm older, grumpier, and I've experienced how difficult it is for a "normal person" to build themselves into anything successful. The system is rigged to keep people poor, stupid, and dependent. Speaking of dependency, socialism certainly isn't the right answer, but our current system of cronyism has gotten out of control. I'll be lucky if I can afford a house within five years and I'll be a god damned airline pilot by 2020. About the time you turn 30 is when you realize your parents were right, rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. I literally cannot afford to be libertarian which is hilarious to me. I might be able to afford it 10 years from now when I finally make as much money as my parents did with nothing more than an apprenticeship.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
Ask any woman how to stand out in a room full of men and they'd probably come up with similar answers. Just like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, they have to be loud and pose challenges. That's the only way anybody will pay attention to them. You're a man who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but many women don't see the world that way.
You've got 3 women running for President on AOC's party and none of them resort to false, off-the-cuff statements like she does to gain attention.

Clinton was loud, but Clinton could also stand behind her claims and force an agree-to-disagree. She didn't bitch that people wanted to debate factually instead of morally.
I don't see the problem with attacking your own people if you have a big disagreement, what do you think happens in the Party Primary's?

AOC Biggest problem is she doesn't understand her own talking points, and doesn't do the full research, she gets the topic without understanding it.
One of the issues highlighted is that she attacked her competitor after she won, & he had apparently pushed support behind her.

Your second sentence is what's wrong with her attacking her own party. She's going to make a remark to a senior Democrat whose going to turn around and fact check her. That's why they want her to stop before the public sees a headline of internal feuding.
 
Last edited:
4,464
United States
Azle, TX
supermanfromazle
SanjiHimura
Your second sentence is what's wrong with her attacking her own party. She's going to make a remark to a senior Democrat whose going to turn around and fact check her. That's why they want her to stop before the public sees a headline of internal feuding.
I’m afraid that it’s already too late. If Trump during the state of the union address already signaled that America will never be a socialist country as a direct remark to her principles, then what, besides the fact that she can’t run for president, is stopping anyone from fact checking her?

This new left wing of the Democratic Party can be stopped if people are not afraid to call BS when necessary. Play the ball and not the man.

As for the tax issue, we in the United States have a thing called Tax Avoidance. A very obscure law that was designed for the Hollywood elite and certain businesses. It’s very complicated and if it wasn’t for the fact that I am on mobile, then I would link you to someone who would explain it better than I ever could. The point is that if we repeal the required laws that allow it, then taxes would sort itself out at the current level.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
I’m afraid that it’s already too late. If Trump during the state of the union address already signaled that America will never be a socialist country as a direct remark to her principles, then what, besides the fact that she can’t run for president, is stopping anyone from fact checking her?
I would say what's stopping the Democrats right now is her attitude. She has the strongest social media following and she uses it as her outlet when she's got something to say. And because she has the maturity level of Trump when it comes to confrontation, she doesn't back down, more so she throws in a comment. The Dems don't want or need that. They know if she says something & a Dem gets involved with her, she may not respond nicely (b/c "you know what I meant, so stop obsessing over a single data point" as the CNN article touched on). The goal for the Dems is to play nicely, let the President hang himself come election.

She's already lucky herself, she can't run for president. She can avoid Shapiro by comparing his desire to debate to cat calling, but that won't fly on a stage debating with 2-3 other fellow party members that want the nomination. That's thankfully years off.
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
As for the tax issue, we in the United States have a thing called Tax Avoidance.

I hate to have to break this to you... that's not an American invention :D

Interestingly it's not illegal either - in summary it's simply a way of moving/spending/investing/storing your money in such a way that you pay the minimum possible amount of tax. Because the process usually takes a number of clever accountants, offshore companies, inshore shell companies, large assets or charitable donations (and many many more) it's an expensive business.
 
952
Belgium
Belgium
Flanders (flinders?), isn't that like the stuff between the toes of elephants, constantly trapped in the melodrama of the Great Powers? You are owed whatever ideological consolation you have available to you.

Yeah Belgium is a ****** place not worth to exist let alone it's citizens to have rights... :P

Taxing a person who made over $10 million, 70% on every dollar made after the $10,000,000th looks to be her biggest work of art to date.

That's crazy? The person made a ****ing 10mil and those 10 aren't even taxed at 70%.

And even if it was, what's the problem? Someone can't live with 3mil a year?

On top of that one person can't be so productive as to EARN 10 mil in a year.

Consumerism has accelerated out of control, sure, but poorer people are more in debt, education still falls behind most of the developed world, our healthcare is the most expensive of the developed world and bankrupts entire families, minorities aren't any more free to explore opportunities, average wage increases haven't kept up with inflation for the past few decades, etc. Meanwhile, the rate of wealth increase for the richest Americans has accelerated rapidly, outpacing middle class wage increases multiple times over, while corporations have consolidated and entered a race of stock prices, while workers get laid off to bolster their bottom lines. This isn't capitalism, this is cronyism, and nothing good has come of it.

I just don't see any other outcome then whar you describe. Isn't it your goal to control the market to a lecel the consumzr has no say no more? I see that as the end goal of a corporation.

Clinton was loud, but Clinton could also stand behind her claims and force an agree-to-disagree. She didn't bitch that people wanted to debate factually instead of morally.

Yeah like the Bernie Bro's critique very factual and not at all based on morality ;)

As for the tax issue, we in the United States have a thing called Tax Avoidance. A very obscure law that was designed for the Hollywood elite and certain businesses. It’s very complicated and if it wasn’t for the fact that I am on mobile, then I would link you to someone who would explain it better than I ever could. The point is that if we repeal the required laws that allow it, then taxes would sort itself out at the current level.

So your solution is they cheat the rules so let's not have rules?

Is your idea the same about issues like murder or theft?
 
4,464
United States
Azle, TX
supermanfromazle
SanjiHimura
So your solution is they cheat the rules so let's not have rules?

Is your idea the same about issues like murder or theft?

Well no. The solution is that if we make Tax Avoidance illegal, then that is a natural tax increase on the rich.

Anything else would be passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices.
 
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
Well no. The solution is that if we make Tax Avoidance illegal, then that is a natural tax increase on the rich.

People who are avoiding tax are doing so legally. There will always be a tax-cheapest option amongst the different offsets, declaration types and so on - while the methods of avoidance will always evolve the practice will always exist by definition. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance never can be.
 

Joey D

Premium
44,270
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
That's crazy? The person made a ****ing 10mil and those 10 aren't even taxed at 70%.

And even if it was, what's the problem? Someone can't live with 3mil a year?

On top of that one person can't be so productive as to EARN 10 mil in a year.

What's the problem? It's theft, plain and simple. If you earn the money, then it should be your money, not the governments.

Yes, taxes are an unfortunate evil, but taxing someone at an obscene rate is ridiculous. People should pay their fair share in taxes, but at the same time, they shouldn't have to pay more than that. @Danoff explained it here perfectly.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
That's crazy? The person made a ****ing 10mil and those 10 aren't even taxed at 70%.

And even if it was, what's the problem? Someone can't live with 3mil a year?

On top of that one person can't be so productive as to EARN 10 mil in a year.
“Hey I made $40 million and my company is still growing. Better shut it down before the govt. feels entitled to 70% of the extra $30 million I made.” That’s $21 million out of the extra $30 million taxed; that’s fair to cut half my money I made as a business owner at that point? What’s my incentive to keep running and not shut it down?

Doesn’t matter if you think $3 million is enough or not. People buy and sell items these days worth that and way, way, way more.

The great thing is you don’t get to dictate what counts as something earned. Since Jeff Bezos’ name has been thrown around, he started Amazon in 1994 and didn’t become a millionaire until around 5 years later. That’s not earned? How about the fact you seem to think someone like him should be taxed 70% for all his money over the $10m threshold & for what? To benefit the less fortunate, even though he willingly donated $97.5 million 3-4 months ago to 24 nonprofit charities that help homeless people?
 

Joey D

Premium
44,270
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
The great thing is you don’t get to dictate what counts as something earned. Since Jeff Bezos’ name has been thrown around, he started Amazon in 1994 and didn’t become a millionaire until around 5 years later. That’s not earned? How about the fact you seem to think someone like him should be taxed 70% for all his money over the $10m threshold? For what? To benefit the less fortunate, even though he willingly donated $97.5 million 3-4 months ago to 24 nonprofit charities that help homeless people?

Even then I don't think most of the tax revenue goes to supporting those who are less fortunate. A large portion of it is used to fund the military, give out free healthcare, and give money to entitled old people (Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security). Charity still does a better job of helping those in need than the government.
 

McLaren

Premium
41,781
United States
Texas
Even then I don't think most of the tax revenue goes to supporting those who are less fortunate. A large portion of it is used to fund the military, give out free healthcare, and give money to entitled old people (Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security). Charity still does a better job of helping those in need than the government.
So realistically, a better option would be to cut back that gigantic military funding. Or distribute it better towards the soldiers themselves than new weapons?
 

Joey D

Premium
44,270
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
So realistically, a better option would be to cut back that gigantic military funding. Or distribute it better towards the soldiers themselves than new weapons?

Ideally both. A smaller funded military with soldiers who have more training and better weapons would probably end up more effective than a military with a ton of funding and a bunch of soldiers with just basic training.

Also, Medicare and Medicaid should be replaced with a more open insurance market that allows people to shop around easier and get the best coverage for themselves.

Finally, with Social Security, people should probably just plan for their retirement whether it's through a company, by themselves or both.