by wj
(Just because who knows where things will go tonight?)
It has occurred to me. Baring divine intervention (or demonic intervention; take your pick) it’s pretty obvious by now how this election will turn out. Only two questions remain:
– What will happen down-ballot? (AKA How big will it be?)
– How does the GOP recover?
Given the number of down-ballot Republican candidates who are “un-endorsing” or otherwise explicitly bailing on Trump, it appears that they, at least, think he is going to do them significant damage. Yeah, some of them may actually be acting on principle here. But let’s face it, anyone really acting on principle (or concern for character or suitability) acted months ago. Figure the professionals, when it comes to elections and winning them, just might know what they are doing.
And it’s not hard to see why. You can win, at least in some places, even while trashing every minority in sight. It might even win you votes, especially if you do it carefully. But start trash-talking white women? That’s not a minority in those places. And their husbands, and fathers, (most of them anyway) also tend to take it badly.
But look a little further ahead. All those folks that Trump has bad-mouthed are not going away. Nor are their memories. So what does the GOP do to recover with them — which it must do if it ever wants to win another national election. And, increasingly, a lot of state and local elections. The post-mortem on the 2012 election laid out the need in general terms. But what specific steps do they take?
I’ve got one off-the-wall idea. Suppose, in 2020, the GOP ran a ticket of Nikki Haley and Susanna Martinez (listed in alphabetical order for the moment). Yeah, I know there is zero chance of that happening — work with me here. At a stroke, the perception of the Republicans’ attitudes towards women, and towards minorities in general (and Hispanics in particular), undergoes a significant change. It may not be totally persuasive, but it’s obviously a big step in the right direction.
Could such a ticket win the general election (in the massively unlikely event that it got nominated)? That depends on a) how Clinton has been doing, and especially b) how the economy is doing for most of the country. But win or lose, it would change the conversation significantly.
If anyone has an alternate specific action or three, feel free to share. It will give you something to talk about until the debate provides new fodder.
My personal bet is that the GOP will try ‘true conservative’ at least one more time. Given that this year about anyone but Trump or Cruz would likely beat Hillary (maybe even Ryan), the argument will even sound halfway plausible. And if they keep Congress, their guaranteed ‘no prisoners’ approach will likely make Hillary look bad enough to pull it off. And the chances are good from their perspective that the next SCOTUS justice leaving the mortal plain will be from the sane side breaking the 4-4 in their favor (since no new justice will be confirmed).
My personal bet is that the GOP will try ‘true conservative’ at least one more time. Given that this year about anyone but Trump or Cruz would likely beat Hillary (maybe even Ryan), the argument will even sound halfway plausible. And if they keep Congress, their guaranteed ‘no prisoners’ approach will likely make Hillary look bad enough to pull it off. And the chances are good from their perspective that the next SCOTUS justice leaving the mortal plain will be from the sane side breaking the 4-4 in their favor (since no new justice will be confirmed).
My personal bet is that the GOP will try ‘true conservative’ at least one more time. Given that this year about anyone but Trump or Cruz would likely beat Hillary (maybe even Ryan), the argument will even sound halfway plausible. And if they keep Congress, their guaranteed ‘no prisoners’ approach will likely make Hillary look bad enough to pull it off. And the chances are good from their perspective that the next SCOTUS justice leaving the mortal plain will be from the sane side breaking the 4-4 in their favor (since no new justice will be confirmed).
I think a lot of how things plays out will depend on how large Trump’s rump of die-hards remains, and how acrimonious the infighting gets between them and the establishment that can’t abandon them fast enough. That will weigh heavily for the down-ballot effect; disavowing Trump currently doesn’t look like it’ll be free of consequences, though that’s really squinting into the future.
I think a lot of how things plays out will depend on how large Trump’s rump of die-hards remains, and how acrimonious the infighting gets between them and the establishment that can’t abandon them fast enough. That will weigh heavily for the down-ballot effect; disavowing Trump currently doesn’t look like it’ll be free of consequences, though that’s really squinting into the future.
I think a lot of how things plays out will depend on how large Trump’s rump of die-hards remains, and how acrimonious the infighting gets between them and the establishment that can’t abandon them fast enough. That will weigh heavily for the down-ballot effect; disavowing Trump currently doesn’t look like it’ll be free of consequences, though that’s really squinting into the future.
The GOP down-balloters are in a no win position (and too damn bad for them). Disavow trump and his supports will hate it and not vote for them. Don’t disavow trump and anyone on the fence votes for their opponent. A good argument could be made that disavowing Trump is more likely to jeopardize their chances at reelection than just staying the course.
I guess we will see.
The GOP down-balloters are in a no win position (and too damn bad for them). Disavow trump and his supports will hate it and not vote for them. Don’t disavow trump and anyone on the fence votes for their opponent. A good argument could be made that disavowing Trump is more likely to jeopardize their chances at reelection than just staying the course.
I guess we will see.
The GOP down-balloters are in a no win position (and too damn bad for them). Disavow trump and his supports will hate it and not vote for them. Don’t disavow trump and anyone on the fence votes for their opponent. A good argument could be made that disavowing Trump is more likely to jeopardize their chances at reelection than just staying the course.
I guess we will see.
My experience in California suggests that it will take at least a couple more utter disasters to convince a lot of Republicans that they have to change. Unfortunately.
But someday…. And when that day finally comes, how do they go about it?
My experience in California suggests that it will take at least a couple more utter disasters to convince a lot of Republicans that they have to change. Unfortunately.
But someday…. And when that day finally comes, how do they go about it?
My experience in California suggests that it will take at least a couple more utter disasters to convince a lot of Republicans that they have to change. Unfortunately.
But someday…. And when that day finally comes, how do they go about it?
So they’re really going to have this thing. Amazing.
So they’re really going to have this thing. Amazing.
So they’re really going to have this thing. Amazing.
The Dem majority in the California legislature is overwhelming, so I don’t see a big sector of the GOP learning anything much.
And the Dems are doing a pretty reasonable job of running the place.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
If the Dems do well in 2020 at the state level they should just gerrymander to GOP out of existence. Goose, gander, all that crap.
The Dem majority in the California legislature is overwhelming, so I don’t see a big sector of the GOP learning anything much.
And the Dems are doing a pretty reasonable job of running the place.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
If the Dems do well in 2020 at the state level they should just gerrymander to GOP out of existence. Goose, gander, all that crap.
The Dem majority in the California legislature is overwhelming, so I don’t see a big sector of the GOP learning anything much.
And the Dems are doing a pretty reasonable job of running the place.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
If the Dems do well in 2020 at the state level they should just gerrymander to GOP out of existence. Goose, gander, all that crap.
Yeah, I hadn’t gotten the impression that repeated electoral face-plants had caused the CA GOP to turn toward sanity.
The beatings must continue until rationality improves.
Yeah, I hadn’t gotten the impression that repeated electoral face-plants had caused the CA GOP to turn toward sanity.
The beatings must continue until rationality improves.
Yeah, I hadn’t gotten the impression that repeated electoral face-plants had caused the CA GOP to turn toward sanity.
The beatings must continue until rationality improves.
At least in California, after a quarter century in the wilderness for the GOP**, we are getting local mayors and occasional legislators who actually interested in governing. And for the good of the whole state, not some narrow segment of it. Which is by way of saying, there are Republican models of governance which are not the sort of insanity that Brownback (and others) have embraced with such fanaticism.
The Democrats have done a reasonable job of running the place. Partly because they have moved to absorb as much of the center as they can grab, rather than seizing the chance to drive home an ideologically pure agenda. (Which is smart politics long-term, if not ideological perfection.) But even so, and they already have better than 2/3 of the legislative seats, we won’t see gerrymandering (pay-back or otherwise) here. Simply because we already ripped the authority to draw districts away from the legislature. And it’s working as intended, I should probably add.
** Note that we went down the anti-(especially Hispanic) immigrant rathole in 1994 with the embrace of Prop 187 by the then Governor. With entirely predictable results. What is easily forgotten is for how long California Governors were reliably Republican (or named Brown — father and son) the entire time since WW II. Reagan was by no means a radical departure when it came to party among our Governors. Ditto one of our two US Senators. No longer, of course.
At least in California, after a quarter century in the wilderness for the GOP**, we are getting local mayors and occasional legislators who actually interested in governing. And for the good of the whole state, not some narrow segment of it. Which is by way of saying, there are Republican models of governance which are not the sort of insanity that Brownback (and others) have embraced with such fanaticism.
The Democrats have done a reasonable job of running the place. Partly because they have moved to absorb as much of the center as they can grab, rather than seizing the chance to drive home an ideologically pure agenda. (Which is smart politics long-term, if not ideological perfection.) But even so, and they already have better than 2/3 of the legislative seats, we won’t see gerrymandering (pay-back or otherwise) here. Simply because we already ripped the authority to draw districts away from the legislature. And it’s working as intended, I should probably add.
** Note that we went down the anti-(especially Hispanic) immigrant rathole in 1994 with the embrace of Prop 187 by the then Governor. With entirely predictable results. What is easily forgotten is for how long California Governors were reliably Republican (or named Brown — father and son) the entire time since WW II. Reagan was by no means a radical departure when it came to party among our Governors. Ditto one of our two US Senators. No longer, of course.
At least in California, after a quarter century in the wilderness for the GOP**, we are getting local mayors and occasional legislators who actually interested in governing. And for the good of the whole state, not some narrow segment of it. Which is by way of saying, there are Republican models of governance which are not the sort of insanity that Brownback (and others) have embraced with such fanaticism.
The Democrats have done a reasonable job of running the place. Partly because they have moved to absorb as much of the center as they can grab, rather than seizing the chance to drive home an ideologically pure agenda. (Which is smart politics long-term, if not ideological perfection.) But even so, and they already have better than 2/3 of the legislative seats, we won’t see gerrymandering (pay-back or otherwise) here. Simply because we already ripped the authority to draw districts away from the legislature. And it’s working as intended, I should probably add.
** Note that we went down the anti-(especially Hispanic) immigrant rathole in 1994 with the embrace of Prop 187 by the then Governor. With entirely predictable results. What is easily forgotten is for how long California Governors were reliably Republican (or named Brown — father and son) the entire time since WW II. Reagan was by no means a radical departure when it came to party among our Governors. Ditto one of our two US Senators. No longer, of course.
Uh, WTF did Trump just do? Jesus.
Uh, WTF did Trump just do? Jesus.
Uh, WTF did Trump just do? Jesus.
Gave anyone with the slightest doubt clear notice about which gutter he would be aiming for. (Rather than, say, paying any attention to the actual voters present and their questions.)
Gave anyone with the slightest doubt clear notice about which gutter he would be aiming for. (Rather than, say, paying any attention to the actual voters present and their questions.)
Gave anyone with the slightest doubt clear notice about which gutter he would be aiming for. (Rather than, say, paying any attention to the actual voters present and their questions.)
Wow. She’s going right at him…hammer and tongs.
Wow. She’s going right at him…hammer and tongs.
Wow. She’s going right at him…hammer and tongs.
Donald needs breath control.
Donald needs breath control.
Donald needs breath control.
“But what specific steps do they take?”
I thought that Rubio was well positioned for 2020, all he had to do was not try to win the fever swamp. But he went all in for this year, and ended up looking pretty bad.
I think the future is Paul Ryan, in ’20 or ’24, fronting the inevitable minority-friendly position the GOP should be in by then. That is, they’ll toss the shrinking group of aging racists overboard in return for a shot at the growing Asian and Hispanic blocs- once it’s clear that winning the racist vote means losing national elections.
“But what specific steps do they take?”
I thought that Rubio was well positioned for 2020, all he had to do was not try to win the fever swamp. But he went all in for this year, and ended up looking pretty bad.
I think the future is Paul Ryan, in ’20 or ’24, fronting the inevitable minority-friendly position the GOP should be in by then. That is, they’ll toss the shrinking group of aging racists overboard in return for a shot at the growing Asian and Hispanic blocs- once it’s clear that winning the racist vote means losing national elections.
“But what specific steps do they take?”
I thought that Rubio was well positioned for 2020, all he had to do was not try to win the fever swamp. But he went all in for this year, and ended up looking pretty bad.
I think the future is Paul Ryan, in ’20 or ’24, fronting the inevitable minority-friendly position the GOP should be in by then. That is, they’ll toss the shrinking group of aging racists overboard in return for a shot at the growing Asian and Hispanic blocs- once it’s clear that winning the racist vote means losing national elections.
I don;t know how Ryan can hope to get elected, given his repeated attempts to destroy the New Deal and the great Society and to totally rig the tax system so no one in his income bracket has to pay any. I realizt that al Republicans lie about their policies and try to run on irrelevancies but Ryan is so closely identified with his Ayn Rand agenda that I don’t see how it could fail to be an important election issue.
I don;t know how Ryan can hope to get elected, given his repeated attempts to destroy the New Deal and the great Society and to totally rig the tax system so no one in his income bracket has to pay any. I realizt that al Republicans lie about their policies and try to run on irrelevancies but Ryan is so closely identified with his Ayn Rand agenda that I don’t see how it could fail to be an important election issue.
I don;t know how Ryan can hope to get elected, given his repeated attempts to destroy the New Deal and the great Society and to totally rig the tax system so no one in his income bracket has to pay any. I realizt that al Republicans lie about their policies and try to run on irrelevancies but Ryan is so closely identified with his Ayn Rand agenda that I don’t see how it could fail to be an important election issue.
I don’t think Trump had really changed that much in terms of the GOP ideology. Theyll have to jettison their nativist baggage, but that was always going to have to happen. He’s maybe added another cycle to the process. Or maybe speeded it up, who knows.
He had maybe changed the electoral process, but too early to know in what ways. The alt right certainly thinks he’s helped their cause, but I think being associated with a buffoonish loser is not the windfall they’re imagining.
I don’t think Trump had really changed that much in terms of the GOP ideology. Theyll have to jettison their nativist baggage, but that was always going to have to happen. He’s maybe added another cycle to the process. Or maybe speeded it up, who knows.
He had maybe changed the electoral process, but too early to know in what ways. The alt right certainly thinks he’s helped their cause, but I think being associated with a buffoonish loser is not the windfall they’re imagining.
I don’t think Trump had really changed that much in terms of the GOP ideology. Theyll have to jettison their nativist baggage, but that was always going to have to happen. He’s maybe added another cycle to the process. Or maybe speeded it up, who knows.
He had maybe changed the electoral process, but too early to know in what ways. The alt right certainly thinks he’s helped their cause, but I think being associated with a buffoonish loser is not the windfall they’re imagining.
wonkie- I think Ryan just has to ‘evolve’ into whatever looks like right wing winning formula at the time. Then he’ll just say he wanted to ‘save’ those programs, and the only people who’ll know he’s lying will be 1)wonky types who don’t make up enough of the electorate to matter and 2)journalists, who if today’s patterns hold won’t feel obligated to correct the record.
wonkie- I think Ryan just has to ‘evolve’ into whatever looks like right wing winning formula at the time. Then he’ll just say he wanted to ‘save’ those programs, and the only people who’ll know he’s lying will be 1)wonky types who don’t make up enough of the electorate to matter and 2)journalists, who if today’s patterns hold won’t feel obligated to correct the record.
wonkie- I think Ryan just has to ‘evolve’ into whatever looks like right wing winning formula at the time. Then he’ll just say he wanted to ‘save’ those programs, and the only people who’ll know he’s lying will be 1)wonky types who don’t make up enough of the electorate to matter and 2)journalists, who if today’s patterns hold won’t feel obligated to correct the record.
Ryan will have to go a long ways to overcome the stink of having stood by Trump so long. Not saying he can’t manage to pull it off, but it won’t be easy. There just aren’t enough Trumpistas out there. And nobody else has much use for his approach of trying to be all things to all men either.
Ryan will have to go a long ways to overcome the stink of having stood by Trump so long. Not saying he can’t manage to pull it off, but it won’t be easy. There just aren’t enough Trumpistas out there. And nobody else has much use for his approach of trying to be all things to all men either.
Ryan will have to go a long ways to overcome the stink of having stood by Trump so long. Not saying he can’t manage to pull it off, but it won’t be easy. There just aren’t enough Trumpistas out there. And nobody else has much use for his approach of trying to be all things to all men either.
He, Trump so admires Vlad Putin that he proposes to emulate Putin’s leadership tactic of jailing his political opponents.
Paul Ryan is either a charlatan or an ignoramus when it comes to economics and taxation. His only political asset is the gullibility of a mass media which treats him as a “policy wonk” in its desperation to pretend that there are Serious People on Both Sides. After his pirouetting around He, Trump in this election, it’s hard to imagine Ryan holding on to even that.
–TP
He, Trump so admires Vlad Putin that he proposes to emulate Putin’s leadership tactic of jailing his political opponents.
Paul Ryan is either a charlatan or an ignoramus when it comes to economics and taxation. His only political asset is the gullibility of a mass media which treats him as a “policy wonk” in its desperation to pretend that there are Serious People on Both Sides. After his pirouetting around He, Trump in this election, it’s hard to imagine Ryan holding on to even that.
–TP
He, Trump so admires Vlad Putin that he proposes to emulate Putin’s leadership tactic of jailing his political opponents.
Paul Ryan is either a charlatan or an ignoramus when it comes to economics and taxation. His only political asset is the gullibility of a mass media which treats him as a “policy wonk” in its desperation to pretend that there are Serious People on Both Sides. After his pirouetting around He, Trump in this election, it’s hard to imagine Ryan holding on to even that.
–TP
The main problem is primary voters ? can they accept Nikki Haley, or even Marco Rubio ? i expect they still need several defeat before entire Trump voters started to die-off.
The main problem is primary voters ? can they accept Nikki Haley, or even Marco Rubio ? i expect they still need several defeat before entire Trump voters started to die-off.
The main problem is primary voters ? can they accept Nikki Haley, or even Marco Rubio ? i expect they still need several defeat before entire Trump voters started to die-off.
So the BBC essentially called this one a score draw, with Trump hitting Hillary on emails and Goldman Sachs. What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
So the BBC essentially called this one a score draw, with Trump hitting Hillary on emails and Goldman Sachs. What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
So the BBC essentially called this one a score draw, with Trump hitting Hillary on emails and Goldman Sachs. What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
I’m not saying I like Ryan, just that he’s staying far enough away from Trump that moderate Republicans and independents won’t hold it against him (much) four or eight years from now.
Liberals will, but we’re not likely to be voting for him anyway.
I’m not saying I like Ryan, just that he’s staying far enough away from Trump that moderate Republicans and independents won’t hold it against him (much) four or eight years from now.
Liberals will, but we’re not likely to be voting for him anyway.
I’m not saying I like Ryan, just that he’s staying far enough away from Trump that moderate Republicans and independents won’t hold it against him (much) four or eight years from now.
Liberals will, but we’re not likely to be voting for him anyway.
Philippe- I’m envisioning something more like a demobilization on the nativist part of the right wing of the GOP, in return for gains in the center (particularly among minorities). Diehard Trump voters who were not active politically before now will presumably go back into their topor.
I think the median GOP primary voter is pretty flexible- they were OK with Romney and McCain. Once the storm calms down they’ll mostly remember 2016 as the year their right wing led them to a bloodbath.
Philippe- I’m envisioning something more like a demobilization on the nativist part of the right wing of the GOP, in return for gains in the center (particularly among minorities). Diehard Trump voters who were not active politically before now will presumably go back into their topor.
I think the median GOP primary voter is pretty flexible- they were OK with Romney and McCain. Once the storm calms down they’ll mostly remember 2016 as the year their right wing led them to a bloodbath.
Philippe- I’m envisioning something more like a demobilization on the nativist part of the right wing of the GOP, in return for gains in the center (particularly among minorities). Diehard Trump voters who were not active politically before now will presumably go back into their topor.
I think the median GOP primary voter is pretty flexible- they were OK with Romney and McCain. Once the storm calms down they’ll mostly remember 2016 as the year their right wing led them to a bloodbath.
If the GOP doesn’t reform their primary process (to dial back on the winner-take-all states), the median GOP primary voter doesn’t matter that much. Right now, the preferences of the modal primary voter are decisive and they want Trump (and probably Trumpism as well).
If the GOP doesn’t reform their primary process (to dial back on the winner-take-all states), the median GOP primary voter doesn’t matter that much. Right now, the preferences of the modal primary voter are decisive and they want Trump (and probably Trumpism as well).
If the GOP doesn’t reform their primary process (to dial back on the winner-take-all states), the median GOP primary voter doesn’t matter that much. Right now, the preferences of the modal primary voter are decisive and they want Trump (and probably Trumpism as well).
How can the Whigs make a comeback ?
What can the Shakers do to shore up their future prospects ?
What can be done to keep Titanic afloat ?
Nothing. They’ve doomed themselves. It’ll take probably another 20 years to play out, but once they had eaten the fruit of the poisonous Southern Strategy tree, and prospered greatly thereby, their fate was sealed.
How can the Whigs make a comeback ?
What can the Shakers do to shore up their future prospects ?
What can be done to keep Titanic afloat ?
Nothing. They’ve doomed themselves. It’ll take probably another 20 years to play out, but once they had eaten the fruit of the poisonous Southern Strategy tree, and prospered greatly thereby, their fate was sealed.
How can the Whigs make a comeback ?
What can the Shakers do to shore up their future prospects ?
What can be done to keep Titanic afloat ?
Nothing. They’ve doomed themselves. It’ll take probably another 20 years to play out, but once they had eaten the fruit of the poisonous Southern Strategy tree, and prospered greatly thereby, their fate was sealed.
What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
CNN’s poll has it for Clinton, 57-34. their pundits agreed: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/opinions/clinton-trump-second-debate-roundup/index.html
What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
CNN’s poll has it for Clinton, 57-34. their pundits agreed: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/opinions/clinton-trump-second-debate-roundup/index.html
What’s the view from your side of the pond, guys?
CNN’s poll has it for Clinton, 57-34. their pundits agreed: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/opinions/clinton-trump-second-debate-roundup/index.html
Josh Marshall, tho, thought it was a draw.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-the-abusers-house
Josh Marshall, tho, thought it was a draw.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-the-abusers-house
Josh Marshall, tho, thought it was a draw.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-the-abusers-house
lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.
‘combat operations’ ended in 2014, but shooting and getting shot have not.
lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.
‘combat operations’ ended in 2014, but shooting and getting shot have not.
lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.
‘combat operations’ ended in 2014, but shooting and getting shot have not.
On this side of the pond, CNN poll aside, the general reaction seems to range from “they tied” to “Trump won simply because the news cycle moved on from focusing exclusively the tape”.
Quoting CNN’s pundits is as valuable as quoting Fox News channel pundits.
But Trump has lots more problems than this debate.
On this side of the pond, CNN poll aside, the general reaction seems to range from “they tied” to “Trump won simply because the news cycle moved on from focusing exclusively the tape”.
Quoting CNN’s pundits is as valuable as quoting Fox News channel pundits.
But Trump has lots more problems than this debate.
On this side of the pond, CNN poll aside, the general reaction seems to range from “they tied” to “Trump won simply because the news cycle moved on from focusing exclusively the tape”.
Quoting CNN’s pundits is as valuable as quoting Fox News channel pundits.
But Trump has lots more problems than this debate.
“lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.”
We are in a permanent state of war. That should be news every day.
“lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.”
We are in a permanent state of war. That should be news every day.
“lost in the noise – last fiday was the 15th anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war.”
We are in a permanent state of war. That should be news every day.
except for a couple of brief pauses, we’ve been at war since 1941.
except for a couple of brief pauses, we’ve been at war since 1941.
except for a couple of brief pauses, we’ve been at war since 1941.
The rightwing winning formula in the past has been to use fairly subtle hate and fear mongering dog whistles, and divisive slogans, combined with lies ( promises to cut taxes, blaming deficits on someone else) and a lot of bombast about being tough. That combined with a reasonably presentable presentation has been the formula. It has been a winning formula for House and Senate seats and even he PResidency a couple of times. Insiders knew that the real agenda was to promote the welfare of the elite at the expense of everyone else.
Trump has no legislative track record and doesn’t use the standard pro-elitist signals, He doesn’t talk about reforming Medicare. He opposed TPP. That made him a little suspect to the Republican party leadership. IN other ways though he is mainstream Republican in substance: he is a hate and fear mongerer. The difference is he doesn’t dog whistle. He just opens his mouth and says what other Republican politicians have been implying.
There’s always been a big streak of authoritarianism in the Republican party.
If Trump was winning, the rest of the Republican politicians would be licking his boots. It looks like he will lose (thank god).
So how will the Republican party go forward? I think they will try to find someone who is Trump with better manners. And that’s basically what they have been doing for decades. The one thing I do not believe they will do is change their Ayn Rand authoritarian agenda and I don;t think the Republican voters will get any better at distinguishing between Republican slogans and dog whistles and actual policy proposals. So they just need someone presentable who supports the elitist agenda and dog whistles effectively.
In other words, I don’t think the Republican party will make any adjustments except in style.
The rightwing winning formula in the past has been to use fairly subtle hate and fear mongering dog whistles, and divisive slogans, combined with lies ( promises to cut taxes, blaming deficits on someone else) and a lot of bombast about being tough. That combined with a reasonably presentable presentation has been the formula. It has been a winning formula for House and Senate seats and even he PResidency a couple of times. Insiders knew that the real agenda was to promote the welfare of the elite at the expense of everyone else.
Trump has no legislative track record and doesn’t use the standard pro-elitist signals, He doesn’t talk about reforming Medicare. He opposed TPP. That made him a little suspect to the Republican party leadership. IN other ways though he is mainstream Republican in substance: he is a hate and fear mongerer. The difference is he doesn’t dog whistle. He just opens his mouth and says what other Republican politicians have been implying.
There’s always been a big streak of authoritarianism in the Republican party.
If Trump was winning, the rest of the Republican politicians would be licking his boots. It looks like he will lose (thank god).
So how will the Republican party go forward? I think they will try to find someone who is Trump with better manners. And that’s basically what they have been doing for decades. The one thing I do not believe they will do is change their Ayn Rand authoritarian agenda and I don;t think the Republican voters will get any better at distinguishing between Republican slogans and dog whistles and actual policy proposals. So they just need someone presentable who supports the elitist agenda and dog whistles effectively.
In other words, I don’t think the Republican party will make any adjustments except in style.
The rightwing winning formula in the past has been to use fairly subtle hate and fear mongering dog whistles, and divisive slogans, combined with lies ( promises to cut taxes, blaming deficits on someone else) and a lot of bombast about being tough. That combined with a reasonably presentable presentation has been the formula. It has been a winning formula for House and Senate seats and even he PResidency a couple of times. Insiders knew that the real agenda was to promote the welfare of the elite at the expense of everyone else.
Trump has no legislative track record and doesn’t use the standard pro-elitist signals, He doesn’t talk about reforming Medicare. He opposed TPP. That made him a little suspect to the Republican party leadership. IN other ways though he is mainstream Republican in substance: he is a hate and fear mongerer. The difference is he doesn’t dog whistle. He just opens his mouth and says what other Republican politicians have been implying.
There’s always been a big streak of authoritarianism in the Republican party.
If Trump was winning, the rest of the Republican politicians would be licking his boots. It looks like he will lose (thank god).
So how will the Republican party go forward? I think they will try to find someone who is Trump with better manners. And that’s basically what they have been doing for decades. The one thing I do not believe they will do is change their Ayn Rand authoritarian agenda and I don;t think the Republican voters will get any better at distinguishing between Republican slogans and dog whistles and actual policy proposals. So they just need someone presentable who supports the elitist agenda and dog whistles effectively.
In other words, I don’t think the Republican party will make any adjustments except in style.
Just watched it. To someone like me (liberal, obsessed with this election so not needing to factcheck certain recurring claims, but determined not to be unthinkingly partisan) it is crystal clear that, completely unlike Trump, HRC has a thorough understanding of the issues, and has substantive plans to address them. Therefore, on the issues, it seems absolutely astonishing that Trump stands a chance with anyone apart from white supremacists and their ilk. So, as everyone has already understood, I guess, it is nothing to do with the issues.
But having just reread what I have written, it occurs to me that people like McKinney and Marty seem to have objected most bitterly to HRC because of a perception of her character/integrity, rather than her policies. So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Just watched it. To someone like me (liberal, obsessed with this election so not needing to factcheck certain recurring claims, but determined not to be unthinkingly partisan) it is crystal clear that, completely unlike Trump, HRC has a thorough understanding of the issues, and has substantive plans to address them. Therefore, on the issues, it seems absolutely astonishing that Trump stands a chance with anyone apart from white supremacists and their ilk. So, as everyone has already understood, I guess, it is nothing to do with the issues.
But having just reread what I have written, it occurs to me that people like McKinney and Marty seem to have objected most bitterly to HRC because of a perception of her character/integrity, rather than her policies. So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Just watched it. To someone like me (liberal, obsessed with this election so not needing to factcheck certain recurring claims, but determined not to be unthinkingly partisan) it is crystal clear that, completely unlike Trump, HRC has a thorough understanding of the issues, and has substantive plans to address them. Therefore, on the issues, it seems absolutely astonishing that Trump stands a chance with anyone apart from white supremacists and their ilk. So, as everyone has already understood, I guess, it is nothing to do with the issues.
But having just reread what I have written, it occurs to me that people like McKinney and Marty seem to have objected most bitterly to HRC because of a perception of her character/integrity, rather than her policies. So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Nothing about Yemen in the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-military.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The US is still maintaining the pretense that the Saudis are only killing civilians by accident. It would be difficult to admit we are knowingly supporting people committing deliberate acts of mass murder, especially given what we are saying about the Russians, calling for war crimes investigations.
It seems the Saudis just needed to kill a larger number in a specific incident to change what is or isn’t possible to do. Now even the Obama administration is ” reviewing” its stance. Something about American values, whatever those are.
Nothing about Yemen in the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-military.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The US is still maintaining the pretense that the Saudis are only killing civilians by accident. It would be difficult to admit we are knowingly supporting people committing deliberate acts of mass murder, especially given what we are saying about the Russians, calling for war crimes investigations.
It seems the Saudis just needed to kill a larger number in a specific incident to change what is or isn’t possible to do. Now even the Obama administration is ” reviewing” its stance. Something about American values, whatever those are.
Nothing about Yemen in the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-military.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The US is still maintaining the pretense that the Saudis are only killing civilians by accident. It would be difficult to admit we are knowingly supporting people committing deliberate acts of mass murder, especially given what we are saying about the Russians, calling for war crimes investigations.
It seems the Saudis just needed to kill a larger number in a specific incident to change what is or isn’t possible to do. Now even the Obama administration is ” reviewing” its stance. Something about American values, whatever those are.
GftNC,
Well, answering only for me, no. Before any other consideration her policies are simply unacceptable. If you could believe what they are.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
One of the most honest things she has said, and completely unacceptable.
For three decades now the Democrats have a run on the platform that they will raise taxes on everyone making more than X. Hers is 200k, a decade ago it was 150k. Which doesn’t raise all that much money, hurts people in the lower end of that range that live in say NY or SF, and is simply a dog whistle for class divisiveness. Again, not acceptable.
The list goes on, but no her policies aren’t generally acceptable in a world where she was honest and trustworthy.
GftNC,
Well, answering only for me, no. Before any other consideration her policies are simply unacceptable. If you could believe what they are.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
One of the most honest things she has said, and completely unacceptable.
For three decades now the Democrats have a run on the platform that they will raise taxes on everyone making more than X. Hers is 200k, a decade ago it was 150k. Which doesn’t raise all that much money, hurts people in the lower end of that range that live in say NY or SF, and is simply a dog whistle for class divisiveness. Again, not acceptable.
The list goes on, but no her policies aren’t generally acceptable in a world where she was honest and trustworthy.
GftNC,
Well, answering only for me, no. Before any other consideration her policies are simply unacceptable. If you could believe what they are.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
One of the most honest things she has said, and completely unacceptable.
For three decades now the Democrats have a run on the platform that they will raise taxes on everyone making more than X. Hers is 200k, a decade ago it was 150k. Which doesn’t raise all that much money, hurts people in the lower end of that range that live in say NY or SF, and is simply a dog whistle for class divisiveness. Again, not acceptable.
The list goes on, but no her policies aren’t generally acceptable in a world where she was honest and trustworthy.
the US doesn’t care about Yemen. and it won’t, unless we get a substantial number of American soldiers directly involved.
the US doesn’t care about Yemen. and it won’t, unless we get a substantial number of American soldiers directly involved.
the US doesn’t care about Yemen. and it won’t, unless we get a substantial number of American soldiers directly involved.
Thanks Marty, although your paraphrase of her SCOTUS answer looks like the direct opposite of what she said, or even meant, with the possible exception of the rest of the sentence after the last comma. Also, I believe her tax threshold is $250k, not 200, for whatever that’s worth. But still, your answer is illuminating: even someone snow white in character would not sway you when the alternative prospect is a Trump presidency.
Thanks Marty, although your paraphrase of her SCOTUS answer looks like the direct opposite of what she said, or even meant, with the possible exception of the rest of the sentence after the last comma. Also, I believe her tax threshold is $250k, not 200, for whatever that’s worth. But still, your answer is illuminating: even someone snow white in character would not sway you when the alternative prospect is a Trump presidency.
Thanks Marty, although your paraphrase of her SCOTUS answer looks like the direct opposite of what she said, or even meant, with the possible exception of the rest of the sentence after the last comma. Also, I believe her tax threshold is $250k, not 200, for whatever that’s worth. But still, your answer is illuminating: even someone snow white in character would not sway you when the alternative prospect is a Trump presidency.
as wonkie noted, this bears no relation at all to what Clinton actually said:
as wonkie noted, this bears no relation at all to what Clinton actually said:
as wonkie noted, this bears no relation at all to what Clinton actually said:
oops!
not wonkie; that was Girl from the North Country!
apologies.
oops!
not wonkie; that was Girl from the North Country!
apologies.
oops!
not wonkie; that was Girl from the North Country!
apologies.
I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately. And I thought it was 250 but last night I thought I heard 200, I checked the transcript and it was 250, still not a meaningful difference in my objections. The higher it is the less it impacts the lower end, but since it also effects so many fewer people as you go up the actual amount collected become insubstantial.
I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately. And I thought it was 250 but last night I thought I heard 200, I checked the transcript and it was 250, still not a meaningful difference in my objections. The higher it is the less it impacts the lower end, but since it also effects so many fewer people as you go up the actual amount collected become insubstantial.
I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately. And I thought it was 250 but last night I thought I heard 200, I checked the transcript and it was 250, still not a meaningful difference in my objections. The higher it is the less it impacts the lower end, but since it also effects so many fewer people as you go up the actual amount collected become insubstantial.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
There is a current conservative majority on the high court. It’s been in place for decades. Upon review of their decisions, it is quite clear they don’t give one whit about the Constitution of The United States. Bush v. Gore anybody? Or how about the pull it out of your ass judicial activism known as Shelby County?
So it’s pretty obvious that when a conservative bleats about judges who “revere the Constitution”, it actually means they want the Court to rule in their favor on the pressing matters that come before it.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
There is a current conservative majority on the high court. It’s been in place for decades. Upon review of their decisions, it is quite clear they don’t give one whit about the Constitution of The United States. Bush v. Gore anybody? Or how about the pull it out of your ass judicial activism known as Shelby County?
So it’s pretty obvious that when a conservative bleats about judges who “revere the Constitution”, it actually means they want the Court to rule in their favor on the pressing matters that come before it.
The answer to the SCOTUS question was, paraphrased “I want a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution, I want a judge that will support the policies I want whether they are constitutional or not”.
There is a current conservative majority on the high court. It’s been in place for decades. Upon review of their decisions, it is quite clear they don’t give one whit about the Constitution of The United States. Bush v. Gore anybody? Or how about the pull it out of your ass judicial activism known as Shelby County?
So it’s pretty obvious that when a conservative bleats about judges who “revere the Constitution”, it actually means they want the Court to rule in their favor on the pressing matters that come before it.
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
The problem is, Marty, that after your first comma and Clinton’s first paragraph, both the paraphrasing and the quote wander off into very subjective territory where what one defines as “judicial activism” becomes the most important criteria in judging the accuracy of your paraphrase.
Even for the first part, though she phrased it fairly badly, is a reasonable objection.
The problem is, Marty, that after your first comma and Clinton’s first paragraph, both the paraphrasing and the quote wander off into very subjective territory where what one defines as “judicial activism” becomes the most important criteria in judging the accuracy of your paraphrase.
Even for the first part, though she phrased it fairly badly, is a reasonable objection.
The problem is, Marty, that after your first comma and Clinton’s first paragraph, both the paraphrasing and the quote wander off into very subjective territory where what one defines as “judicial activism” becomes the most important criteria in judging the accuracy of your paraphrase.
Even for the first part, though she phrased it fairly badly, is a reasonable objection.
Marty’s paraphrase only makes sense if you assume “experienced in being a judge” means “NOT understand the way the world really works, who DO NOT HAVE have real-life experience”
I wouldn’t consider that an either/or question, but perhaps the RW does.
Marty’s paraphrase only makes sense if you assume “experienced in being a judge” means “NOT understand the way the world really works, who DO NOT HAVE have real-life experience”
I wouldn’t consider that an either/or question, but perhaps the RW does.
Marty’s paraphrase only makes sense if you assume “experienced in being a judge” means “NOT understand the way the world really works, who DO NOT HAVE have real-life experience”
I wouldn’t consider that an either/or question, but perhaps the RW does.
Marty,
Do you know why our revered Founders, peace be upon them, stipulated a supreme court and not a single supreme judge in Article III of the Constitution? It’s because different people can look at the same text and come to entirely different judgements about its essential meaning. Witness your own curious interpretation of Hillary’s words, compared with GftNC’s.
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
“… I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works … I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country … I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests …”
Were YOU the Supreme Judge of the US, your judgement that statements like that amount to not caring about the Constitution would be infallible because they would be final. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that it would be final because it is infallible.
I will never tire of pointing out that the Founders, in their wisdom, did not stipulate that Justices be appointed by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They made appointments an explicitly political process. They did that so your opinions and mine both would factor into the nomination and confirmation process — through our votes in elections.
Go vote your opinions, and I’ll go vote mine. And keep on trying to convince us that willingness to overturn Roe v Wade would be a constitutional criterion for selecting Justices but willingness to overturn Citizens United isn’t. We can use the laughs.
–TP
Marty,
Do you know why our revered Founders, peace be upon them, stipulated a supreme court and not a single supreme judge in Article III of the Constitution? It’s because different people can look at the same text and come to entirely different judgements about its essential meaning. Witness your own curious interpretation of Hillary’s words, compared with GftNC’s.
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
“… I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works … I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country … I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests …”
Were YOU the Supreme Judge of the US, your judgement that statements like that amount to not caring about the Constitution would be infallible because they would be final. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that it would be final because it is infallible.
I will never tire of pointing out that the Founders, in their wisdom, did not stipulate that Justices be appointed by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They made appointments an explicitly political process. They did that so your opinions and mine both would factor into the nomination and confirmation process — through our votes in elections.
Go vote your opinions, and I’ll go vote mine. And keep on trying to convince us that willingness to overturn Roe v Wade would be a constitutional criterion for selecting Justices but willingness to overturn Citizens United isn’t. We can use the laughs.
–TP
Marty,
Do you know why our revered Founders, peace be upon them, stipulated a supreme court and not a single supreme judge in Article III of the Constitution? It’s because different people can look at the same text and come to entirely different judgements about its essential meaning. Witness your own curious interpretation of Hillary’s words, compared with GftNC’s.
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
“… I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works … I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country … I want a Supreme Court that doesn’t always side with corporate interests …”
Were YOU the Supreme Judge of the US, your judgement that statements like that amount to not caring about the Constitution would be infallible because they would be final. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that it would be final because it is infallible.
I will never tire of pointing out that the Founders, in their wisdom, did not stipulate that Justices be appointed by seniority, or by competitive examination, or by lot. They made appointments an explicitly political process. They did that so your opinions and mine both would factor into the nomination and confirmation process — through our votes in elections.
Go vote your opinions, and I’ll go vote mine. And keep on trying to convince us that willingness to overturn Roe v Wade would be a constitutional criterion for selecting Justices but willingness to overturn Citizens United isn’t. We can use the laughs.
–TP
The federal take as a % of GNP has been remarkably stable since WWII. Corporate taxes have tailed off a bit, but SSI, Medicare taxes are a much larger component. These taxes hit the lower and middle class hardest, as they are regressive in nature.
The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract, a contract they and their rabid whackadoodle conservative supporters want to tear up.
The federal take as a % of GNP has been remarkably stable since WWII. Corporate taxes have tailed off a bit, but SSI, Medicare taxes are a much larger component. These taxes hit the lower and middle class hardest, as they are regressive in nature.
The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract, a contract they and their rabid whackadoodle conservative supporters want to tear up.
The federal take as a % of GNP has been remarkably stable since WWII. Corporate taxes have tailed off a bit, but SSI, Medicare taxes are a much larger component. These taxes hit the lower and middle class hardest, as they are regressive in nature.
The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract, a contract they and their rabid whackadoodle conservative supporters want to tear up.
Let’s face it, at $250K per year, even if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF or Silicon Valley, both of which are expensive) the main impact of a tax increase such as those being talked about is on your ability to buy a hot new car every year or two. Or something of that kind — luxuries which may be really great, but are hardly going to convince the rest of the population that you will suffer significantly if you don’t get them in the quantity you would prefer.
I’ll grant it’s a better argument than claiming that the reduction will cause a drop in economic activity which will be result in a net decrease in tax revenue. (That’s the flip side of “tax cuts will more than pay for themselves.”) But that’s a pretty low bar to be better than.
Let’s face it, at $250K per year, even if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF or Silicon Valley, both of which are expensive) the main impact of a tax increase such as those being talked about is on your ability to buy a hot new car every year or two. Or something of that kind — luxuries which may be really great, but are hardly going to convince the rest of the population that you will suffer significantly if you don’t get them in the quantity you would prefer.
I’ll grant it’s a better argument than claiming that the reduction will cause a drop in economic activity which will be result in a net decrease in tax revenue. (That’s the flip side of “tax cuts will more than pay for themselves.”) But that’s a pretty low bar to be better than.
Let’s face it, at $250K per year, even if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF or Silicon Valley, both of which are expensive) the main impact of a tax increase such as those being talked about is on your ability to buy a hot new car every year or two. Or something of that kind — luxuries which may be really great, but are hardly going to convince the rest of the population that you will suffer significantly if you don’t get them in the quantity you would prefer.
I’ll grant it’s a better argument than claiming that the reduction will cause a drop in economic activity which will be result in a net decrease in tax revenue. (That’s the flip side of “tax cuts will more than pay for themselves.”) But that’s a pretty low bar to be better than.
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
In fairness to Marty, the “not experienced in being a judge” can be easily derived from Clinton’s quote. I didn’t see it at first, but on re-reading her phrasing does fairly readily suggest that she wants nominees with more experience in front of the bench than on the bench. Basically, the part suggesting that interpretation is the same part you replaced with ellipses when you quoted her…
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
In fairness to Marty, the “not experienced in being a judge” can be easily derived from Clinton’s quote. I didn’t see it at first, but on re-reading her phrasing does fairly readily suggest that she wants nominees with more experience in front of the bench than on the bench. Basically, the part suggesting that interpretation is the same part you replaced with ellipses when you quoted her…
Your paraphrase that HRC wants “a judge that is not experienced in being a judge, or cares about the constitution” is an interpretation you are pulling out of your “life experience”, or out of your ass, but not out of the text. You’d make a helluva strict constructionist.
In fairness to Marty, the “not experienced in being a judge” can be easily derived from Clinton’s quote. I didn’t see it at first, but on re-reading her phrasing does fairly readily suggest that she wants nominees with more experience in front of the bench than on the bench. Basically, the part suggesting that interpretation is the same part you replaced with ellipses when you quoted her…
“The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract,”
True, but any other reason than to raise revenue is punitive, stupid and essentially accomplishes the opposite of “rebalancing the social contract”.
“The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract,”
True, but any other reason than to raise revenue is punitive, stupid and essentially accomplishes the opposite of “rebalancing the social contract”.
“The point of taxing the rich at a higher rate is not so much to raise revenue (it would) but to rebalance the social contract,”
True, but any other reason than to raise revenue is punitive, stupid and essentially accomplishes the opposite of “rebalancing the social contract”.
Gasp! Bobby P finds economist to agree with him!
Stop the presses.
Gasp! Bobby P finds economist to agree with him!
Stop the presses.
Gasp! Bobby P finds economist to agree with him!
Stop the presses.
Here’s a great way to get started rebuilding the Republican brand:
Further
Suppose some voters in Congressional elections decide to believe her? After all, she is their Presidential candidate’s campaign manager, so she must know things, right?
I’m torn between “Götterdämmerung” and “Sampson in the temple” at this point.
Here’s a great way to get started rebuilding the Republican brand:
Further
Suppose some voters in Congressional elections decide to believe her? After all, she is their Presidential candidate’s campaign manager, so she must know things, right?
I’m torn between “Götterdämmerung” and “Sampson in the temple” at this point.
Here’s a great way to get started rebuilding the Republican brand:
Further
Suppose some voters in Congressional elections decide to believe her? After all, she is their Presidential candidate’s campaign manager, so she must know things, right?
I’m torn between “Götterdämmerung” and “Sampson in the temple” at this point.
it seems to me that there are two reasons for raising taxes on high earners.
1. we need the money
2. they have the money
it seems to me that there are two reasons for raising taxes on high earners.
1. we need the money
2. they have the money
it seems to me that there are two reasons for raising taxes on high earners.
1. we need the money
2. they have the money
NV, are you referring to …
… who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against …
perhaps? If so, how much would you weigh the word “just”?
It’s fairly common knowledge that a number of Justices, some of them great or at least significant in the Court’s history, were not “just” elevated from the Appeals Courts but had previous “real world” experience up to and including POTUS if I’m not mistaken. Marty surely knows this, and so do you, and I suggest that so does HRC.
–TP
NV, are you referring to …
… who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against …
perhaps? If so, how much would you weigh the word “just”?
It’s fairly common knowledge that a number of Justices, some of them great or at least significant in the Court’s history, were not “just” elevated from the Appeals Courts but had previous “real world” experience up to and including POTUS if I’m not mistaken. Marty surely knows this, and so do you, and I suggest that so does HRC.
–TP
NV, are you referring to …
… who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against …
perhaps? If so, how much would you weigh the word “just”?
It’s fairly common knowledge that a number of Justices, some of them great or at least significant in the Court’s history, were not “just” elevated from the Appeals Courts but had previous “real world” experience up to and including POTUS if I’m not mistaken. Marty surely knows this, and so do you, and I suggest that so does HRC.
–TP
2. they have the money
If raising taxes on the wealthy is punitive and “has no effect”, then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
So, if that is the case, why did we adopt them?
Supremes: In my fevered dreams, HRC wins. The Senate flips Dem. She nominates Obama for the Court. GOP members balk, start filibuster. The filibuster is ended once and for all. Obama can look Roberts in the face and ask, “So do tell me about these balls and strikes, I don’t see these terms in the Constitution.”
(alas, not likely on several counts….but one can dream) 😉
2. they have the money
If raising taxes on the wealthy is punitive and “has no effect”, then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
So, if that is the case, why did we adopt them?
Supremes: In my fevered dreams, HRC wins. The Senate flips Dem. She nominates Obama for the Court. GOP members balk, start filibuster. The filibuster is ended once and for all. Obama can look Roberts in the face and ask, “So do tell me about these balls and strikes, I don’t see these terms in the Constitution.”
(alas, not likely on several counts….but one can dream) 😉
2. they have the money
If raising taxes on the wealthy is punitive and “has no effect”, then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
So, if that is the case, why did we adopt them?
Supremes: In my fevered dreams, HRC wins. The Senate flips Dem. She nominates Obama for the Court. GOP members balk, start filibuster. The filibuster is ended once and for all. Obama can look Roberts in the face and ask, “So do tell me about these balls and strikes, I don’t see these terms in the Constitution.”
(alas, not likely on several counts….but one can dream) 😉
Bobby, no, no, no! Obama doesn’t look Roberts in the face. Because (following tradition — see William Howard Taft) he is Roberts’ successor as Chief Justice.
Queue heads exploding on the right….
Bobby, no, no, no! Obama doesn’t look Roberts in the face. Because (following tradition — see William Howard Taft) he is Roberts’ successor as Chief Justice.
Queue heads exploding on the right….
Bobby, no, no, no! Obama doesn’t look Roberts in the face. Because (following tradition — see William Howard Taft) he is Roberts’ successor as Chief Justice.
Queue heads exploding on the right….
some of the members are known for “rubbing up against girls” and “sticking their tongues down women’s throats uninvited.”
the party of family values continues to impress.
with its hypocrisy.
some of the members are known for “rubbing up against girls” and “sticking their tongues down women’s throats uninvited.”
the party of family values continues to impress.
with its hypocrisy.
some of the members are known for “rubbing up against girls” and “sticking their tongues down women’s throats uninvited.”
the party of family values continues to impress.
with its hypocrisy.
Tax arithmetic I have no time to do at the moment:
Suppose we made federal income taxes “flat” per the formula
TAX = (INCOME – EXEMPTION) * RATE .
Pick a number for total TAX revenue. Look up the distribution of INCOME in the US. Then you can calculate the RATE you need for a given EXEMPTION or vice versa. If you really nerd out, you can make a set of RATE vs EXEMPTION curves, one curve for each level of total revenue you want to raise.
Note that my formula is of exactly the same form as the Forbes flat tax formula. My question is about the numerical parameters. I’d like to know, for instance, what total tax revenue would be if we set EXEMPTION=$200K and RATE=60%, or if $100K/45% would raise less or more revenue.
–TP
Tax arithmetic I have no time to do at the moment:
Suppose we made federal income taxes “flat” per the formula
TAX = (INCOME – EXEMPTION) * RATE .
Pick a number for total TAX revenue. Look up the distribution of INCOME in the US. Then you can calculate the RATE you need for a given EXEMPTION or vice versa. If you really nerd out, you can make a set of RATE vs EXEMPTION curves, one curve for each level of total revenue you want to raise.
Note that my formula is of exactly the same form as the Forbes flat tax formula. My question is about the numerical parameters. I’d like to know, for instance, what total tax revenue would be if we set EXEMPTION=$200K and RATE=60%, or if $100K/45% would raise less or more revenue.
–TP
Tax arithmetic I have no time to do at the moment:
Suppose we made federal income taxes “flat” per the formula
TAX = (INCOME – EXEMPTION) * RATE .
Pick a number for total TAX revenue. Look up the distribution of INCOME in the US. Then you can calculate the RATE you need for a given EXEMPTION or vice versa. If you really nerd out, you can make a set of RATE vs EXEMPTION curves, one curve for each level of total revenue you want to raise.
Note that my formula is of exactly the same form as the Forbes flat tax formula. My question is about the numerical parameters. I’d like to know, for instance, what total tax revenue would be if we set EXEMPTION=$200K and RATE=60%, or if $100K/45% would raise less or more revenue.
–TP
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
For some of the things liberals care about, Kennedy is now on the liberal side (in some cases, predating Scalia’s death). He was the deciding vote on the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant under the CAA. He was the deciding vote on same-sex marriage. He was the deciding vote on taking redistricting power away from state legislatures. He has voted consistently to preserve the PPACA.
I’m probably wrong, but I attribute some of this to a new “I’m not going to let you f*ck up California” attitude.
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
For some of the things liberals care about, Kennedy is now on the liberal side (in some cases, predating Scalia’s death). He was the deciding vote on the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant under the CAA. He was the deciding vote on same-sex marriage. He was the deciding vote on taking redistricting power away from state legislatures. He has voted consistently to preserve the PPACA.
I’m probably wrong, but I attribute some of this to a new “I’m not going to let you f*ck up California” attitude.
Minor correction….currently a 4-4 standoff, but prior to Scalia’s passing….a conservative majority since the Reagan era.
For some of the things liberals care about, Kennedy is now on the liberal side (in some cases, predating Scalia’s death). He was the deciding vote on the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant under the CAA. He was the deciding vote on same-sex marriage. He was the deciding vote on taking redistricting power away from state legislatures. He has voted consistently to preserve the PPACA.
I’m probably wrong, but I attribute some of this to a new “I’m not going to let you f*ck up California” attitude.
So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Fair question. Probably not. The best I can do, given Trump, is not vote against her. Which, but for Trump, is something I’d really, really like to do.
Why? One example: HRC loves to talk about making millionaires pay their fair share in taxes. Then, having waived that bloody shirt, she actually wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250K. It’s the kind of dishonest misdirection that I quickly grew tired of under Bill and I’m already tired of it under HRC.
And, on a personal level, she’s talking about raising my taxes. My full tax load (federal, state & local) last year was pretty close to 40% of my income. That’s plenty. Gov’t can work just a little bit on being more efficient with the trillions it already has.
Second point: Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic. I like the constitution–all of it, not just part of it–and that means living with stuff like Citizens United (which involved an attempt to suppress, i.e. censor, an anti-HRC movie, the essence of free speech). I don’t like flag burning or putting crosses in bottles of urine, but it’s all protected speech. Unpopular speech especially needs protection and the current generation of college lefties is all about censorship. So, hell no, I don’t want someone who is an unknown being nominated. Not a chance in hell. And, being a trial lawyer myself, that is no qualification at all for the appellate bench.
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes. The reason why they move their money offshore is to pay lower taxes. Fifteen percent of a dollar is 15 cents more than zero percent of a dollar.
HRC–and Democrats generally–would never lower corporate tax rates. For them, it’s a matter of principle. Forget that every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar that could be spent growing the company and either raising salaries or adding new employees. Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits, Citizens United, Bush v Gore, etc, etc.
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt. We add to that debt every day. We have no plan whatsoever to address a stagnant economy and an ever-expanding government that *must* borrow to make ends meet.
I can’t pull the trigger for Trump, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for HRC.
then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Fair question. Probably not. The best I can do, given Trump, is not vote against her. Which, but for Trump, is something I’d really, really like to do.
Why? One example: HRC loves to talk about making millionaires pay their fair share in taxes. Then, having waived that bloody shirt, she actually wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250K. It’s the kind of dishonest misdirection that I quickly grew tired of under Bill and I’m already tired of it under HRC.
And, on a personal level, she’s talking about raising my taxes. My full tax load (federal, state & local) last year was pretty close to 40% of my income. That’s plenty. Gov’t can work just a little bit on being more efficient with the trillions it already has.
Second point: Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic. I like the constitution–all of it, not just part of it–and that means living with stuff like Citizens United (which involved an attempt to suppress, i.e. censor, an anti-HRC movie, the essence of free speech). I don’t like flag burning or putting crosses in bottles of urine, but it’s all protected speech. Unpopular speech especially needs protection and the current generation of college lefties is all about censorship. So, hell no, I don’t want someone who is an unknown being nominated. Not a chance in hell. And, being a trial lawyer myself, that is no qualification at all for the appellate bench.
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes. The reason why they move their money offshore is to pay lower taxes. Fifteen percent of a dollar is 15 cents more than zero percent of a dollar.
HRC–and Democrats generally–would never lower corporate tax rates. For them, it’s a matter of principle. Forget that every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar that could be spent growing the company and either raising salaries or adding new employees. Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits, Citizens United, Bush v Gore, etc, etc.
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt. We add to that debt every day. We have no plan whatsoever to address a stagnant economy and an ever-expanding government that *must* borrow to make ends meet.
I can’t pull the trigger for Trump, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for HRC.
then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
So, for clarification, would any right wing or Republican NeverHillaryites be prepared to say whether, the Republican alternative being Trump, they would vote for someone putting forward all the same policy proposals that HRC is doing, but without her character “flaws”. It would be most interesting.
Fair question. Probably not. The best I can do, given Trump, is not vote against her. Which, but for Trump, is something I’d really, really like to do.
Why? One example: HRC loves to talk about making millionaires pay their fair share in taxes. Then, having waived that bloody shirt, she actually wants to raise taxes on everyone making more than 250K. It’s the kind of dishonest misdirection that I quickly grew tired of under Bill and I’m already tired of it under HRC.
And, on a personal level, she’s talking about raising my taxes. My full tax load (federal, state & local) last year was pretty close to 40% of my income. That’s plenty. Gov’t can work just a little bit on being more efficient with the trillions it already has.
Second point: Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic. I like the constitution–all of it, not just part of it–and that means living with stuff like Citizens United (which involved an attempt to suppress, i.e. censor, an anti-HRC movie, the essence of free speech). I don’t like flag burning or putting crosses in bottles of urine, but it’s all protected speech. Unpopular speech especially needs protection and the current generation of college lefties is all about censorship. So, hell no, I don’t want someone who is an unknown being nominated. Not a chance in hell. And, being a trial lawyer myself, that is no qualification at all for the appellate bench.
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes. The reason why they move their money offshore is to pay lower taxes. Fifteen percent of a dollar is 15 cents more than zero percent of a dollar.
HRC–and Democrats generally–would never lower corporate tax rates. For them, it’s a matter of principle. Forget that every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar that could be spent growing the company and either raising salaries or adding new employees. Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits, Citizens United, Bush v Gore, etc, etc.
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt. We add to that debt every day. We have no plan whatsoever to address a stagnant economy and an ever-expanding government that *must* borrow to make ends meet.
I can’t pull the trigger for Trump, but that doesn’t mean I have to vote for HRC.
then surely public policies that promote wealth distribution upward (trade, currency, intellectual property, labor mobility–to name a few) are also punitive (for the rest of us)and also “have no effect”.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
you’re in luck. because she never said she wanted to do that.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
you’re in luck. because she never said she wanted to do that.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
you’re in luck. because she never said she wanted to do that.
if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
It’s not quite that simple, is it? For example, suppose corporate taxes do go to zero. Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name. Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend. And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
Could we figure out ways around that? I expect so. Would we (at least without a huge amount of whinging from those making more than a couple hundred thousand per year, and maybe at all)? I doubt it.
if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
It’s not quite that simple, is it? For example, suppose corporate taxes do go to zero. Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name. Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend. And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
Could we figure out ways around that? I expect so. Would we (at least without a huge amount of whinging from those making more than a couple hundred thousand per year, and maybe at all)? I doubt it.
if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
It’s not quite that simple, is it? For example, suppose corporate taxes do go to zero. Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name. Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend. And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
Could we figure out ways around that? I expect so. Would we (at least without a huge amount of whinging from those making more than a couple hundred thousand per year, and maybe at all)? I doubt it.
Michael,
Well if you want to go all nuance on me, fine. You have a point. Perhaps Kennedy is shifting on some matters.
If the article’s analysis is correct, his “liberal votes” reflect more of a reaction to conservative overreach than a change of heart, the affirmative action case notwithstanding.
Michael,
Well if you want to go all nuance on me, fine. You have a point. Perhaps Kennedy is shifting on some matters.
If the article’s analysis is correct, his “liberal votes” reflect more of a reaction to conservative overreach than a change of heart, the affirmative action case notwithstanding.
Michael,
Well if you want to go all nuance on me, fine. You have a point. Perhaps Kennedy is shifting on some matters.
If the article’s analysis is correct, his “liberal votes” reflect more of a reaction to conservative overreach than a change of heart, the affirmative action case notwithstanding.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals.
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
Thanks for the response, McKinney. I’m glad it’s now clear that, even without HRC’s appalling character flaws (according to you, Marty and the rightwing noise machine), Snow White proposing her policies would not be enough for you, despite Trump being her opponent. While I agree, after some consideration, that what she said about SCOTUS was ambiguous, or at least capable of different interpretations, your quote in italics above seems to me a very unlikely version. She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record. However, I am considering her words to be those of an intelligent lawyer, with no intent to subvert the workings of the highest court in her land, and I understand that this is not how you, or Marty, or millions of other Americans regard her.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals.
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
Thanks for the response, McKinney. I’m glad it’s now clear that, even without HRC’s appalling character flaws (according to you, Marty and the rightwing noise machine), Snow White proposing her policies would not be enough for you, despite Trump being her opponent. While I agree, after some consideration, that what she said about SCOTUS was ambiguous, or at least capable of different interpretations, your quote in italics above seems to me a very unlikely version. She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record. However, I am considering her words to be those of an intelligent lawyer, with no intent to subvert the workings of the highest court in her land, and I understand that this is not how you, or Marty, or millions of other Americans regard her.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals.
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
Thanks for the response, McKinney. I’m glad it’s now clear that, even without HRC’s appalling character flaws (according to you, Marty and the rightwing noise machine), Snow White proposing her policies would not be enough for you, despite Trump being her opponent. While I agree, after some consideration, that what she said about SCOTUS was ambiguous, or at least capable of different interpretations, your quote in italics above seems to me a very unlikely version. She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record. However, I am considering her words to be those of an intelligent lawyer, with no intent to subvert the workings of the highest court in her land, and I understand that this is not how you, or Marty, or millions of other Americans regard her.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
Utah? They’ve maintained a marvelous credit rating. They had a state health insurance exchange pre-PPACA, although oriented towards different things. The governor favors Medicaid expansion and it looks like he’ll have something worked out with the legislature for the next session. They worked out something, with the support of the LDS, for clerks with a religious problem about same-sex marriage. OTOH, the Republicans have gerrymandered things to keep SLC from electing a Democratic to the US House.
I’ve long said that conservatives and the Republican Party in the Mountain West (including eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, and the northern part of California) would find that in the long term their interests are not well-aligned with conservatives and Republicans in Kansas, or Indiana, or Louisiana.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
Utah? They’ve maintained a marvelous credit rating. They had a state health insurance exchange pre-PPACA, although oriented towards different things. The governor favors Medicaid expansion and it looks like he’ll have something worked out with the legislature for the next session. They worked out something, with the support of the LDS, for clerks with a religious problem about same-sex marriage. OTOH, the Republicans have gerrymandered things to keep SLC from electing a Democratic to the US House.
I’ve long said that conservatives and the Republican Party in the Mountain West (including eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, and the northern part of California) would find that in the long term their interests are not well-aligned with conservatives and Republicans in Kansas, or Indiana, or Louisiana.
What is the model of GOP governance? Brownback’s Kansas?
Utah? They’ve maintained a marvelous credit rating. They had a state health insurance exchange pre-PPACA, although oriented towards different things. The governor favors Medicaid expansion and it looks like he’ll have something worked out with the legislature for the next session. They worked out something, with the support of the LDS, for clerks with a religious problem about same-sex marriage. OTOH, the Republicans have gerrymandered things to keep SLC from electing a Democratic to the US House.
I’ve long said that conservatives and the Republican Party in the Mountain West (including eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, and the northern part of California) would find that in the long term their interests are not well-aligned with conservatives and Republicans in Kansas, or Indiana, or Louisiana.
Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name.
Are you self employed? Because it’s your income from your employer that gets taxed. You can incorporate tomorrow and none of your earned income as an employee is going to flow through your corp. If you are self employed , you can leave all of your money in your corp, but the minute you take it out, it gets taxed. So, good luck there, living off of nothing.
Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend.
See above.
And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
It better be in a different city than where you have your primary residence, or you get hammered in an audit.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
You’re missing the point entirely. Corporate tax rates have very little, if anything, to do with high net worth individuals–they got their money as salary or bonus in cash or stock. They pay either cap gains or earned income tax. It has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
It’s a pretty straightforward proposition: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Y’all have an interesting view of the tax code. Yes, you can expense an office at home, provided it’s used as an office and provided you have a demonstrable need for one. If you’re not self-employed or required to work at home, good luck. We have a home northwest of Austin where we plan to retire. I work out of an office their 3-5 days a month. I expense that office. It has a phone, fax, computer, printer, a dozen law books I use regularly and appropriate office supplies. I also have an office in our home in Houston. I do not expense that because it wouldn’t survive an audit, or so my CPA tells me.
As for cars, you can put it in your company’s name provided you own the company(and pay property tax on it, most likely), but you can’t depreciate or expense more than you can document as legitimate business use.
And none of this has anything to do with corporate tax rates, as I tried to make clear above.
Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name.
Are you self employed? Because it’s your income from your employer that gets taxed. You can incorporate tomorrow and none of your earned income as an employee is going to flow through your corp. If you are self employed , you can leave all of your money in your corp, but the minute you take it out, it gets taxed. So, good luck there, living off of nothing.
Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend.
See above.
And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
It better be in a different city than where you have your primary residence, or you get hammered in an audit.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
You’re missing the point entirely. Corporate tax rates have very little, if anything, to do with high net worth individuals–they got their money as salary or bonus in cash or stock. They pay either cap gains or earned income tax. It has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
It’s a pretty straightforward proposition: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Y’all have an interesting view of the tax code. Yes, you can expense an office at home, provided it’s used as an office and provided you have a demonstrable need for one. If you’re not self-employed or required to work at home, good luck. We have a home northwest of Austin where we plan to retire. I work out of an office their 3-5 days a month. I expense that office. It has a phone, fax, computer, printer, a dozen law books I use regularly and appropriate office supplies. I also have an office in our home in Houston. I do not expense that because it wouldn’t survive an audit, or so my CPA tells me.
As for cars, you can put it in your company’s name provided you own the company(and pay property tax on it, most likely), but you can’t depreciate or expense more than you can document as legitimate business use.
And none of this has anything to do with corporate tax rates, as I tried to make clear above.
Sp I incorporate myself, putting my assets in the corporate name.
Are you self employed? Because it’s your income from your employer that gets taxed. You can incorporate tomorrow and none of your earned income as an employee is going to flow through your corp. If you are self employed , you can leave all of your money in your corp, but the minute you take it out, it gets taxed. So, good luck there, living off of nothing.
Then I pay myself some minimal support stipend.
See above.
And require me to live in what used to be my house . . . for the convenience of my employer, of course. Etc., etc., etc.
It better be in a different city than where you have your primary residence, or you get hammered in an audit.
And don’t tell me that a certain amount of that doesn’t already happen with high net worth individuals. But if it could get their tax rate to zero, it would definitely be worth paying all the lawyers and tax acountants required.
You’re missing the point entirely. Corporate tax rates have very little, if anything, to do with high net worth individuals–they got their money as salary or bonus in cash or stock. They pay either cap gains or earned income tax. It has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
It’s a pretty straightforward proposition: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
hell, it already happens with anyone who has an S-Corp. some accountants will encourage you to designate a room in your house to be an office so you can that room’s share of your mortgage as a business expense.
need a faster computer to check FB? business expense! need a new wi-fi router for the house? business expense! need a new car? business expense!
Y’all have an interesting view of the tax code. Yes, you can expense an office at home, provided it’s used as an office and provided you have a demonstrable need for one. If you’re not self-employed or required to work at home, good luck. We have a home northwest of Austin where we plan to retire. I work out of an office their 3-5 days a month. I expense that office. It has a phone, fax, computer, printer, a dozen law books I use regularly and appropriate office supplies. I also have an office in our home in Houston. I do not expense that because it wouldn’t survive an audit, or so my CPA tells me.
As for cars, you can put it in your company’s name provided you own the company(and pay property tax on it, most likely), but you can’t depreciate or expense more than you can document as legitimate business use.
And none of this has anything to do with corporate tax rates, as I tried to make clear above.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
I listed them in general terms:
1. Trade. We expose one segment of the labor force to the full competitive price effects of world markets, but not others. This puts pressure on wage income.
2. Currency. We prop up the dollar in order to maintain reserve currency status. This protects some financial assets and creditors in general.
3. The apparently never-ending wider definition of what constitutes protected intellectual property. This is a creation by the state of monopolies and monopoly profits.
4. The differing tax treatment of certain kinds of income…carried interest, loopholes, etc.
5. Monetary and fiscal policies that act to maintain a “loose” labor market. Austerity policies which see.
You could read some of Dean Baker’s writings on these matters for a basic primer. I have cited his work here rather routinely.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
I listed them in general terms:
1. Trade. We expose one segment of the labor force to the full competitive price effects of world markets, but not others. This puts pressure on wage income.
2. Currency. We prop up the dollar in order to maintain reserve currency status. This protects some financial assets and creditors in general.
3. The apparently never-ending wider definition of what constitutes protected intellectual property. This is a creation by the state of monopolies and monopoly profits.
4. The differing tax treatment of certain kinds of income…carried interest, loopholes, etc.
5. Monetary and fiscal policies that act to maintain a “loose” labor market. Austerity policies which see.
You could read some of Dean Baker’s writings on these matters for a basic primer. I have cited his work here rather routinely.
BP, what public policies are you talking about? You’ve made this statement any number of times and I’ve always wanted to ask. Thanks.
I listed them in general terms:
1. Trade. We expose one segment of the labor force to the full competitive price effects of world markets, but not others. This puts pressure on wage income.
2. Currency. We prop up the dollar in order to maintain reserve currency status. This protects some financial assets and creditors in general.
3. The apparently never-ending wider definition of what constitutes protected intellectual property. This is a creation by the state of monopolies and monopoly profits.
4. The differing tax treatment of certain kinds of income…carried interest, loopholes, etc.
5. Monetary and fiscal policies that act to maintain a “loose” labor market. Austerity policies which see.
You could read some of Dean Baker’s writings on these matters for a basic primer. I have cited his work here rather routinely.
She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record.
Perhaps I am wrong, given the suggestion above she might nominate Obama. Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record.
Perhaps I am wrong, given the suggestion above she might nominate Obama. Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
She is a lawyer, I think she was taking it for granted that anybody who could be nominated would have a judicial track record.
Perhaps I am wrong, given the suggestion above she might nominate Obama. Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
Yes, but not in recent decades.
is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
Yes, but not in recent decades.
is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
Yes, but not in recent decades.
OT – John freaking Bolton is on my people mover at Dulles right now. That is all.
Thank you McKinney.
OT – John freaking Bolton is on my people mover at Dulles right now. That is all.
Thank you McKinney.
OT – John freaking Bolton is on my people mover at Dulles right now. That is all.
Thank you McKinney.
Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
It used to be common. Currently, only Kagan was never a judge prior to her nomination.
It also used to be common to nominate people with some geographic diversity. Of the current crop (including Scalia before he died), only Kennedy didn’t get nominated out of a position in the northeast urban corridor. I believe firmly that ten years on the Ninth or Tenth or Eighth Circuit court gives one a somewhat different perspective than ten years on the First, Second, or DC Circuit. Ditto for where you get your law degree (only Ginsberg isn’t Yale/Harvard, and she started at Harvard).
This may be the only subject in the world that Justice Thomas and I agree on :^)
Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
It used to be common. Currently, only Kagan was never a judge prior to her nomination.
It also used to be common to nominate people with some geographic diversity. Of the current crop (including Scalia before he died), only Kennedy didn’t get nominated out of a position in the northeast urban corridor. I believe firmly that ten years on the Ninth or Tenth or Eighth Circuit court gives one a somewhat different perspective than ten years on the First, Second, or DC Circuit. Ditto for where you get your law degree (only Ginsberg isn’t Yale/Harvard, and she started at Harvard).
This may be the only subject in the world that Justice Thomas and I agree on :^)
Can anybody tell me, is there much/any precedent for nominating non-judges to SCOTUS?
It used to be common. Currently, only Kagan was never a judge prior to her nomination.
It also used to be common to nominate people with some geographic diversity. Of the current crop (including Scalia before he died), only Kennedy didn’t get nominated out of a position in the northeast urban corridor. I believe firmly that ten years on the Ninth or Tenth or Eighth Circuit court gives one a somewhat different perspective than ten years on the First, Second, or DC Circuit. Ditto for where you get your law degree (only Ginsberg isn’t Yale/Harvard, and she started at Harvard).
This may be the only subject in the world that Justice Thomas and I agree on :^)
Gosh, how wrong can a person be. I apologise for my ignorance. Thanks for the info, Michael Cain.
Gosh, how wrong can a person be. I apologise for my ignorance. Thanks for the info, Michael Cain.
Gosh, how wrong can a person be. I apologise for my ignorance. Thanks for the info, Michael Cain.
I forgot about Kagan. Good point.
I forgot about Kagan. Good point.
I forgot about Kagan. Good point.
GFNC,
Here’s the list.
GFNC,
Here’s the list.
GFNC,
Here’s the list.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
As others mentioned above, she didn’t say this. About as far as I’d take what she said was that she wants to shift the pre-judicial and judicial experience of SCOTUS justices more heavily towards pre-judicial.
Less experience as a judge, not no experience.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
As others mentioned above, she didn’t say this. About as far as I’d take what she said was that she wants to shift the pre-judicial and judicial experience of SCOTUS justices more heavily towards pre-judicial.
Less experience as a judge, not no experience.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic.
As others mentioned above, she didn’t say this. About as far as I’d take what she said was that she wants to shift the pre-judicial and judicial experience of SCOTUS justices more heavily towards pre-judicial.
Less experience as a judge, not no experience.
Thanks for the list, bobbyp. Some very famous names on there, even to an ignorant Brit like me, and two Nixon appointees. Very interesting.
Thanks for the list, bobbyp. Some very famous names on there, even to an ignorant Brit like me, and two Nixon appointees. Very interesting.
Thanks for the list, bobbyp. Some very famous names on there, even to an ignorant Brit like me, and two Nixon appointees. Very interesting.
It would be nice if more justices didn’t think of being arrested, or searched, or even just being pulled over by police, as some administrative function and minor inconvenience.
Heck maybe even suffered some of those things themselves so they know what it’s like.
It would be nice if more justices didn’t think of being arrested, or searched, or even just being pulled over by police, as some administrative function and minor inconvenience.
Heck maybe even suffered some of those things themselves so they know what it’s like.
It would be nice if more justices didn’t think of being arrested, or searched, or even just being pulled over by police, as some administrative function and minor inconvenience.
Heck maybe even suffered some of those things themselves so they know what it’s like.
The Republican Party is threatening no nominees will pass muster for the Supreme Court. We could be down to five or six justices by 2020.
No one seems much more radical than someone …. anyone Clinton might put forward and get confirmed.
How does that threat sit with those who value experience in a candidate?
Given the anti-elitist, anti-credential, anti-expert, anti-incumbent-experience pro-know-nothing Zietgeist abroad in the heartland, my idea of a suitable judge would be Pa Kettle.
Or would he defer to Ma Kettle too much?
You do the math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blD-cfko1A
The Republican Party is threatening no nominees will pass muster for the Supreme Court. We could be down to five or six justices by 2020.
No one seems much more radical than someone …. anyone Clinton might put forward and get confirmed.
How does that threat sit with those who value experience in a candidate?
Given the anti-elitist, anti-credential, anti-expert, anti-incumbent-experience pro-know-nothing Zietgeist abroad in the heartland, my idea of a suitable judge would be Pa Kettle.
Or would he defer to Ma Kettle too much?
You do the math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blD-cfko1A
The Republican Party is threatening no nominees will pass muster for the Supreme Court. We could be down to five or six justices by 2020.
No one seems much more radical than someone …. anyone Clinton might put forward and get confirmed.
How does that threat sit with those who value experience in a candidate?
Given the anti-elitist, anti-credential, anti-expert, anti-incumbent-experience pro-know-nothing Zietgeist abroad in the heartland, my idea of a suitable judge would be Pa Kettle.
Or would he defer to Ma Kettle too much?
You do the math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blD-cfko1A
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
There are a whole slew of IRC provisions designed to combat this form of tax sheltering (e.g., putting all your dividend and interest bearing securities in a corporation and leaving them their to build up at low tax rates), but of course there is no one at the IRS that has experience in enforcing them because they haven’t been relevant for 30+ years.
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
There are a whole slew of IRC provisions designed to combat this form of tax sheltering (e.g., putting all your dividend and interest bearing securities in a corporation and leaving them their to build up at low tax rates), but of course there is no one at the IRS that has experience in enforcing them because they haven’t been relevant for 30+ years.
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
There are a whole slew of IRC provisions designed to combat this form of tax sheltering (e.g., putting all your dividend and interest bearing securities in a corporation and leaving them their to build up at low tax rates), but of course there is no one at the IRS that has experience in enforcing them because they haven’t been relevant for 30+ years.
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Anyone who does that gets taxed twice. It doesn’t make sense. It’s a shelter only as long as you leave money inside the company. Even if a corp pays a lower rate on dividends–call this Tax 1–(I doubt if GE owns a lot of dividend paying stocks, but whatever) it earns from other corp’s stock (a weird concept), and even if it retains a lot or all of its earnings, the owners/investors get taxed when they eventually get paid, so there is Tax 2. Dividends are taxed as ordinary income just like salaries and bonuses, so assuming the owners are in the max-tax bracket, their effective rate is 55% plus. Yes, they can time their receipt for years in which they have large losses (good plan: lose a bunch of money to offset the big profits and avoid taxes), which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Anyone who does that gets taxed twice. It doesn’t make sense. It’s a shelter only as long as you leave money inside the company. Even if a corp pays a lower rate on dividends–call this Tax 1–(I doubt if GE owns a lot of dividend paying stocks, but whatever) it earns from other corp’s stock (a weird concept), and even if it retains a lot or all of its earnings, the owners/investors get taxed when they eventually get paid, so there is Tax 2. Dividends are taxed as ordinary income just like salaries and bonuses, so assuming the owners are in the max-tax bracket, their effective rate is 55% plus. Yes, they can time their receipt for years in which they have large losses (good plan: lose a bunch of money to offset the big profits and avoid taxes), which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
On taxes – lowering the corporate rate to, e.g., 15% while the top individual marginal rate is ~40% means the return of the corporate form as a tax shelter, as it was in (IIRC) the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Anyone who does that gets taxed twice. It doesn’t make sense. It’s a shelter only as long as you leave money inside the company. Even if a corp pays a lower rate on dividends–call this Tax 1–(I doubt if GE owns a lot of dividend paying stocks, but whatever) it earns from other corp’s stock (a weird concept), and even if it retains a lot or all of its earnings, the owners/investors get taxed when they eventually get paid, so there is Tax 2. Dividends are taxed as ordinary income just like salaries and bonuses, so assuming the owners are in the max-tax bracket, their effective rate is 55% plus. Yes, they can time their receipt for years in which they have large losses (good plan: lose a bunch of money to offset the big profits and avoid taxes), which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
Corps pay a lower rate on dividends now via the dividends received deduction (section 243), which is intended to ameliorate the multiple layers of tax currently imposed.
If the corporate rate is zero, then there is not tax at either level. If the corporate rate is 15% and the upper tier corp does not receive a DRD the rate is 27.75% on the original earned income. Still lower than the individual rate if there were no preference for dividends and capital gains. And of course interest is deductible to the paying corporation.
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
Corps pay a lower rate on dividends now via the dividends received deduction (section 243), which is intended to ameliorate the multiple layers of tax currently imposed.
If the corporate rate is zero, then there is not tax at either level. If the corporate rate is 15% and the upper tier corp does not receive a DRD the rate is 27.75% on the original earned income. Still lower than the individual rate if there were no preference for dividends and capital gains. And of course interest is deductible to the paying corporation.
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
Corps pay a lower rate on dividends now via the dividends received deduction (section 243), which is intended to ameliorate the multiple layers of tax currently imposed.
If the corporate rate is zero, then there is not tax at either level. If the corporate rate is 15% and the upper tier corp does not receive a DRD the rate is 27.75% on the original earned income. Still lower than the individual rate if there were no preference for dividends and capital gains. And of course interest is deductible to the paying corporation.
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
…which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
Unless it’s hidden in the mattress, money is rarely “doing nothing”, and if it is retained in the corporation it could be doing quite a lot growing at some compound rate (assumes earnings) unencumbered by current taxes.
And there is also the old, but as far as I know, still true adage that a tax delayed is a tax not paid.
And I try not to argue with old adagers.
As for that old canard, double taxation…I give you, surprise, Dean Baker.
…which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
Unless it’s hidden in the mattress, money is rarely “doing nothing”, and if it is retained in the corporation it could be doing quite a lot growing at some compound rate (assumes earnings) unencumbered by current taxes.
And there is also the old, but as far as I know, still true adage that a tax delayed is a tax not paid.
And I try not to argue with old adagers.
As for that old canard, double taxation…I give you, surprise, Dean Baker.
…which means leaving money in accounts doing nothing for some number of years.
Unless it’s hidden in the mattress, money is rarely “doing nothing”, and if it is retained in the corporation it could be doing quite a lot growing at some compound rate (assumes earnings) unencumbered by current taxes.
And there is also the old, but as far as I know, still true adage that a tax delayed is a tax not paid.
And I try not to argue with old adagers.
As for that old canard, double taxation…I give you, surprise, Dean Baker.
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
Ok, so in your world, a sneaky, tax dodger person borrows a bunch of money, secures that loan with a lien on his corporation’s cash, defaults on the loan and the bank levy’s on the corp accounts and Sneaky Taxdodger keeps the loan proceeds, thus avoiding income. Hmmmm. Using company funds as his own to secure payment of a personal loan wouldn’t be imputed income? I think not.
Sneaky Taxdodger Scenario Two is that Sneaky Taxdodger makes millions but lives the life of a pauper in order to pass his low-taxed dollars on to his heirs (who also lived life as paupers until daddy had the decency to die). Seems like a lot of trouble to avoid taxes.
Tell me, do you think your concerns would be such widespread practices that they would offset the straightforward–and unaddressed–notion that lower taxes would keep jobs and money inside the US? All of those jobs produce FICA and taxable income to employees. Good stuff, yes?
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
Ok, so in your world, a sneaky, tax dodger person borrows a bunch of money, secures that loan with a lien on his corporation’s cash, defaults on the loan and the bank levy’s on the corp accounts and Sneaky Taxdodger keeps the loan proceeds, thus avoiding income. Hmmmm. Using company funds as his own to secure payment of a personal loan wouldn’t be imputed income? I think not.
Sneaky Taxdodger Scenario Two is that Sneaky Taxdodger makes millions but lives the life of a pauper in order to pass his low-taxed dollars on to his heirs (who also lived life as paupers until daddy had the decency to die). Seems like a lot of trouble to avoid taxes.
Tell me, do you think your concerns would be such widespread practices that they would offset the straightforward–and unaddressed–notion that lower taxes would keep jobs and money inside the US? All of those jobs produce FICA and taxable income to employees. Good stuff, yes?
Yes you still have to get the $$ out without paying another level of taxes, but that is what secured loans and the estate tax are for.
Ok, so in your world, a sneaky, tax dodger person borrows a bunch of money, secures that loan with a lien on his corporation’s cash, defaults on the loan and the bank levy’s on the corp accounts and Sneaky Taxdodger keeps the loan proceeds, thus avoiding income. Hmmmm. Using company funds as his own to secure payment of a personal loan wouldn’t be imputed income? I think not.
Sneaky Taxdodger Scenario Two is that Sneaky Taxdodger makes millions but lives the life of a pauper in order to pass his low-taxed dollars on to his heirs (who also lived life as paupers until daddy had the decency to die). Seems like a lot of trouble to avoid taxes.
Tell me, do you think your concerns would be such widespread practices that they would offset the straightforward–and unaddressed–notion that lower taxes would keep jobs and money inside the US? All of those jobs produce FICA and taxable income to employees. Good stuff, yes?
I just want to have a beer with Sneaky Taxdodger, I bet that is a riot.
I just want to have a beer with Sneaky Taxdodger, I bet that is a riot.
I just want to have a beer with Sneaky Taxdodger, I bet that is a riot.
As for that old canard, double taxation
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income. They are paid with after tax dollars and then taxed a second time as ordinary income (as high as 42%). So, a dollar is reduced by 35%, leaving 65 cents. Then, the remaining 65 cents is taxed at 42%, leaving just under 38 cents for the investor. All of the rest has gone to Washington. So, why isn’t our economy booming with this kind of incentive?
As for that old canard, double taxation
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income. They are paid with after tax dollars and then taxed a second time as ordinary income (as high as 42%). So, a dollar is reduced by 35%, leaving 65 cents. Then, the remaining 65 cents is taxed at 42%, leaving just under 38 cents for the investor. All of the rest has gone to Washington. So, why isn’t our economy booming with this kind of incentive?
As for that old canard, double taxation
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income. They are paid with after tax dollars and then taxed a second time as ordinary income (as high as 42%). So, a dollar is reduced by 35%, leaving 65 cents. Then, the remaining 65 cents is taxed at 42%, leaving just under 38 cents for the investor. All of the rest has gone to Washington. So, why isn’t our economy booming with this kind of incentive?
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out. So does his issue, now that I think about it. They inherit the corp’s stock. The stock is the ownership, the certificate of title if you will, of the company. That entitles the issue to access the funds. The only what they can do that is by salary or bonus or dividend, all of which are taxed upon receipt. So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out. So does his issue, now that I think about it. They inherit the corp’s stock. The stock is the ownership, the certificate of title if you will, of the company. That entitles the issue to access the funds. The only what they can do that is by salary or bonus or dividend, all of which are taxed upon receipt. So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Why would Sneaky Taxdodger #2 live the life of a pauper? While eliminating tax obligation is STd’s dream, that’s not really realizable and STd will settle for reducing their tax burden. So STd shelters the money they don’t feel like they need to live a non-pauperous lifestyle IOT preserve it more or less intact until their passing, at which time STd’s issue can have their way with the unravaged trove.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out. So does his issue, now that I think about it. They inherit the corp’s stock. The stock is the ownership, the certificate of title if you will, of the company. That entitles the issue to access the funds. The only what they can do that is by salary or bonus or dividend, all of which are taxed upon receipt. So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic…
For whom … ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic…
For whom … ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
Putting someone on SCOTUS who does not have a judicial track record is highly problematic…
For whom … ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren
For whom … ?
For everyone. It’s bipartisan. No one wants to be gulled by an unknown. If one side starts putting up ‘unknowns’, then the other side will do it and the rest of us will have no idea who or what we are getting.
For whom … ?
For everyone. It’s bipartisan. No one wants to be gulled by an unknown. If one side starts putting up ‘unknowns’, then the other side will do it and the rest of us will have no idea who or what we are getting.
For whom … ?
For everyone. It’s bipartisan. No one wants to be gulled by an unknown. If one side starts putting up ‘unknowns’, then the other side will do it and the rest of us will have no idea who or what we are getting.
Surely you’re not still smarting from Ike’s ‘mistake’ ?
🙂
Surely you’re not still smarting from Ike’s ‘mistake’ ?
🙂
Surely you’re not still smarting from Ike’s ‘mistake’ ?
🙂
i suggest a corporate tax rate of zero, along with unearned income being taxed at the same rate as income.
if the money stays in the corp, it’s not taxed.
when an actual human being receives it as income, it’s taxed. as income. no distinctions made between wages, cap gains, deferred compensation, or any other happy horsesh*t
any takers?
i suggest a corporate tax rate of zero, along with unearned income being taxed at the same rate as income.
if the money stays in the corp, it’s not taxed.
when an actual human being receives it as income, it’s taxed. as income. no distinctions made between wages, cap gains, deferred compensation, or any other happy horsesh*t
any takers?
i suggest a corporate tax rate of zero, along with unearned income being taxed at the same rate as income.
if the money stays in the corp, it’s not taxed.
when an actual human being receives it as income, it’s taxed. as income. no distinctions made between wages, cap gains, deferred compensation, or any other happy horsesh*t
any takers?
McTX: … So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Deferring your tax bill until after you’re comfortably dead is like living in Heaven before you actually die.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”?
–TP
McTX: … So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Deferring your tax bill until after you’re comfortably dead is like living in Heaven before you actually die.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”?
–TP
McTX: … So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow. Deferring your tax bill until after you’re comfortably dead is like living in Heaven before you actually die.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”?
–TP
any takers?
I’m okay with that except that retirees should have a some better deal: maybe that unearned income, above $20,000 per year (or so), should be taxed at a normal rate.
I would be open to arguments against that.
any takers?
I’m okay with that except that retirees should have a some better deal: maybe that unearned income, above $20,000 per year (or so), should be taxed at a normal rate.
I would be open to arguments against that.
any takers?
I’m okay with that except that retirees should have a some better deal: maybe that unearned income, above $20,000 per year (or so), should be taxed at a normal rate.
I would be open to arguments against that.
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income.
You can call it whatever you want. It is a tax. It is a tax like other taxes. As Baker points out, there is solid social and economic justification for this particular tax.
Unless, of course, you are advocating that the government provide special protections for certain kinds of “people” engaging in certain kinds of socially desirable, but risky activities for nothing.
Under generally accepted usage of the English language that would be called a subsidy.
What kind of conservatism is that?
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income.
You can call it whatever you want. It is a tax. It is a tax like other taxes. As Baker points out, there is solid social and economic justification for this particular tax.
Unless, of course, you are advocating that the government provide special protections for certain kinds of “people” engaging in certain kinds of socially desirable, but risky activities for nothing.
Under generally accepted usage of the English language that would be called a subsidy.
What kind of conservatism is that?
BP, your link doesn’t disprove the solid fact of double taxation. Dividends are not deductible from a corp’s income.
You can call it whatever you want. It is a tax. It is a tax like other taxes. As Baker points out, there is solid social and economic justification for this particular tax.
Unless, of course, you are advocating that the government provide special protections for certain kinds of “people” engaging in certain kinds of socially desirable, but risky activities for nothing.
Under generally accepted usage of the English language that would be called a subsidy.
What kind of conservatism is that?
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
But they can both buy me beer any time they want.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
But they can both buy me beer any time they want.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
But they can both buy me beer any time they want.
I’m not advocating for anything. I’m just stating that if corporate income is taxed at a right significantly lower than individual income there will be (and has been) the temptation to use a corporation as a tax shelter. As I said, there are code provisions set up to combat the stashing of passive income inside a corporation to take advantage of the lower rate, such as the personal holding company regime, likely wouldn’t work.
I’m not advocating for anything. I’m just stating that if corporate income is taxed at a right significantly lower than individual income there will be (and has been) the temptation to use a corporation as a tax shelter. As I said, there are code provisions set up to combat the stashing of passive income inside a corporation to take advantage of the lower rate, such as the personal holding company regime, likely wouldn’t work.
I’m not advocating for anything. I’m just stating that if corporate income is taxed at a right significantly lower than individual income there will be (and has been) the temptation to use a corporation as a tax shelter. As I said, there are code provisions set up to combat the stashing of passive income inside a corporation to take advantage of the lower rate, such as the personal holding company regime, likely wouldn’t work.
I would be open to arguments against that.
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
I would be open to arguments against that.
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
I would be open to arguments against that.
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
Distributions from IRA’s, 401K’s, etc., are taxable income.
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
any takers?
Me.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow.
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
BP–Baker make the not-very-intelligent argument that double taxation is a fair trade for the limited liability a company enjoys. The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere. I’d rather have more 15% taxes and the jobs that come with them. No need to get all class warrior over this–if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.
any takers?
Me.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow.
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
BP–Baker make the not-very-intelligent argument that double taxation is a fair trade for the limited liability a company enjoys. The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere. I’d rather have more 15% taxes and the jobs that come with them. No need to get all class warrior over this–if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.
any takers?
Me.
Nonsense. Deferring a tax bill is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether, because money today is worth more than money tomorrow.
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
BTW, McKinney, where do you stand on the “death tax”
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
BP–Baker make the not-very-intelligent argument that double taxation is a fair trade for the limited liability a company enjoys. The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere. I’d rather have more 15% taxes and the jobs that come with them. No need to get all class warrior over this–if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.
any takers?
Almost! It’s complicated.
any takers?
Almost! It’s complicated.
any takers?
Almost! It’s complicated.
My response to TP was incomplete: I don’t know about you, but the only reason I make money is to spend it. If all of my money was sitting in an account somewhere, and if it cost me 55 cents on the dollar to access that money, I wouldn’t be too happy about that. And, eventually, someone pays that tax. They pay that tax the year in which they get the money. They derive no benefit from the deferral, because they never had the money.
In effect, double taxation takes money out of circulation–unless it’s reinvested, which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.
My response to TP was incomplete: I don’t know about you, but the only reason I make money is to spend it. If all of my money was sitting in an account somewhere, and if it cost me 55 cents on the dollar to access that money, I wouldn’t be too happy about that. And, eventually, someone pays that tax. They pay that tax the year in which they get the money. They derive no benefit from the deferral, because they never had the money.
In effect, double taxation takes money out of circulation–unless it’s reinvested, which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.
My response to TP was incomplete: I don’t know about you, but the only reason I make money is to spend it. If all of my money was sitting in an account somewhere, and if it cost me 55 cents on the dollar to access that money, I wouldn’t be too happy about that. And, eventually, someone pays that tax. They pay that tax the year in which they get the money. They derive no benefit from the deferral, because they never had the money.
In effect, double taxation takes money out of circulation–unless it’s reinvested, which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
It is absolutely true. If 5 people own a company in 5 equal shares and if that company has taxable income of 1M, unless that company is a Sub-S, it pays tax on the 1M. If the owners want to pay their bills and go on vacation, they have to pay themselves a salary or declare a dividend. Dividends, by law, are net of the corp’s income tax, so it’s probably salaries. If they take salaries in the year in which the money is made, to that extent, they are not sheltering the money. The salary is an expense against income and reduces the corp’s tax liability accordingly.
Dividends are taxed twice. First at the corporate level and then in the hands of the shareholder.
Almost! It’s complicated.
Not really. Any distribution net of operating expenses to any third party, corporate or individual, regardless of kind or character, is deemed ordinary income and taxed accordingly. One dollar taxed once. That would send the economy into orbit.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
It is absolutely true. If 5 people own a company in 5 equal shares and if that company has taxable income of 1M, unless that company is a Sub-S, it pays tax on the 1M. If the owners want to pay their bills and go on vacation, they have to pay themselves a salary or declare a dividend. Dividends, by law, are net of the corp’s income tax, so it’s probably salaries. If they take salaries in the year in which the money is made, to that extent, they are not sheltering the money. The salary is an expense against income and reduces the corp’s tax liability accordingly.
Dividends are taxed twice. First at the corporate level and then in the hands of the shareholder.
Almost! It’s complicated.
Not really. Any distribution net of operating expenses to any third party, corporate or individual, regardless of kind or character, is deemed ordinary income and taxed accordingly. One dollar taxed once. That would send the economy into orbit.
SDT pays tax twice on what he takes out.
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
It is absolutely true. If 5 people own a company in 5 equal shares and if that company has taxable income of 1M, unless that company is a Sub-S, it pays tax on the 1M. If the owners want to pay their bills and go on vacation, they have to pay themselves a salary or declare a dividend. Dividends, by law, are net of the corp’s income tax, so it’s probably salaries. If they take salaries in the year in which the money is made, to that extent, they are not sheltering the money. The salary is an expense against income and reduces the corp’s tax liability accordingly.
Dividends are taxed twice. First at the corporate level and then in the hands of the shareholder.
Almost! It’s complicated.
Not really. Any distribution net of operating expenses to any third party, corporate or individual, regardless of kind or character, is deemed ordinary income and taxed accordingly. One dollar taxed once. That would send the economy into orbit.
So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
…
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
Who is this SDT you two are speaking of? I thought we were talking about Sneaky Taxdodger, not Sneaky Dodger of Taxes. SDT sounds stuffy and pretentious, and I can’t imagine Marty wanting to have a beer with them.
So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
…
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
Who is this SDT you two are speaking of? I thought we were talking about Sneaky Taxdodger, not Sneaky Dodger of Taxes. SDT sounds stuffy and pretentious, and I can’t imagine Marty wanting to have a beer with them.
So, SDT might kick the can down the road, but that accomplishes nothing.
…
Unless SDT and the corporation are legally the same person, this is not true.
Who is this SDT you two are speaking of? I thought we were talking about Sneaky Taxdodger, not Sneaky Dodger of Taxes. SDT sounds stuffy and pretentious, and I can’t imagine Marty wanting to have a beer with them.
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere
Embedded in this deeply unserious remark is the assumption “all else being equal”, which is rarely the case. And if I am a “person” who pays out streams of income to other persons, why should I give a flying “f@ck” about their taxes?
Jobs are not fleeing the country because of the corporate tax rate. Certain jobs in certain sectors are fleeing the country due to huge labor and regulatory compliance cost savings.
If your hypothesis were even remotely true, every corporation in the world would be based in Uzbekistan.
Clearly, they are not.
The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere
Embedded in this deeply unserious remark is the assumption “all else being equal”, which is rarely the case. And if I am a “person” who pays out streams of income to other persons, why should I give a flying “f@ck” about their taxes?
Jobs are not fleeing the country because of the corporate tax rate. Certain jobs in certain sectors are fleeing the country due to huge labor and regulatory compliance cost savings.
If your hypothesis were even remotely true, every corporation in the world would be based in Uzbekistan.
Clearly, they are not.
The trade off, which you do not acknowledge, is that companies don’t like double taxation and they take their much smaller tax dollars and their jobs elsewhere
Embedded in this deeply unserious remark is the assumption “all else being equal”, which is rarely the case. And if I am a “person” who pays out streams of income to other persons, why should I give a flying “f@ck” about their taxes?
Jobs are not fleeing the country because of the corporate tax rate. Certain jobs in certain sectors are fleeing the country due to huge labor and regulatory compliance cost savings.
If your hypothesis were even remotely true, every corporation in the world would be based in Uzbekistan.
Clearly, they are not.
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
I assure that for the 5m after posting my 5:46, I was kicking myself for all the suddenly-conceived far-worse innuendo I could have worked into that paragraph instead of the barely-there tame ones I went with.
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
I assure that for the 5m after posting my 5:46, I was kicking myself for all the suddenly-conceived far-worse innuendo I could have worked into that paragraph instead of the barely-there tame ones I went with.
But only imagine if we were referring to this person as an STD!
I assure that for the 5m after posting my 5:46, I was kicking myself for all the suddenly-conceived far-worse innuendo I could have worked into that paragraph instead of the barely-there tame ones I went with.
A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation.
What this has to do with future tax obligations is precisely nothing.
Apparently in your world you can walk into the bank and get a mortgage with all the interest payments back loaded instead of the traditional frontloading because, hey, it doesn’t matter! It’s all the same! And inflation will eat it all up!!!!
They’ll be enthralled with your bargaining acumen.
A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation.
What this has to do with future tax obligations is precisely nothing.
Apparently in your world you can walk into the bank and get a mortgage with all the interest payments back loaded instead of the traditional frontloading because, hey, it doesn’t matter! It’s all the same! And inflation will eat it all up!!!!
They’ll be enthralled with your bargaining acumen.
A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation.
What this has to do with future tax obligations is precisely nothing.
Apparently in your world you can walk into the bank and get a mortgage with all the interest payments back loaded instead of the traditional frontloading because, hey, it doesn’t matter! It’s all the same! And inflation will eat it all up!!!!
They’ll be enthralled with your bargaining acumen.
Corporations want out of the United States primarily to reduce/avoid paying US taxes on their US income. Which they currently do at a much higher rate than they pay taxes on income earned most other places in the world. But they still continue to do business here despite that rate because they US is freaking huge and a lot more money can still be made here than anywhere else.
To the extent they have a legitimate gripe it’s because foreign owned businesses can reduce their US income and thus US tax rate by making deductible interest payments to themselves, which US headquartered companies can’t do. There is a simple fix for this but the GOPcontrolled congress won’t do anything about it. So we get things like the anti inversion regulations and regulations under section 385 treating debt as equity, much of which is horribly complicated.
Corporations want out of the United States primarily to reduce/avoid paying US taxes on their US income. Which they currently do at a much higher rate than they pay taxes on income earned most other places in the world. But they still continue to do business here despite that rate because they US is freaking huge and a lot more money can still be made here than anywhere else.
To the extent they have a legitimate gripe it’s because foreign owned businesses can reduce their US income and thus US tax rate by making deductible interest payments to themselves, which US headquartered companies can’t do. There is a simple fix for this but the GOPcontrolled congress won’t do anything about it. So we get things like the anti inversion regulations and regulations under section 385 treating debt as equity, much of which is horribly complicated.
Corporations want out of the United States primarily to reduce/avoid paying US taxes on their US income. Which they currently do at a much higher rate than they pay taxes on income earned most other places in the world. But they still continue to do business here despite that rate because they US is freaking huge and a lot more money can still be made here than anywhere else.
To the extent they have a legitimate gripe it’s because foreign owned businesses can reduce their US income and thus US tax rate by making deductible interest payments to themselves, which US headquartered companies can’t do. There is a simple fix for this but the GOPcontrolled congress won’t do anything about it. So we get things like the anti inversion regulations and regulations under section 385 treating debt as equity, much of which is horribly complicated.
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
Correct. It is socially sanctioned tax deferral. The principle is the same for passive income parked in a corporate shelter to avoid taxes, right?
Then why not exclude the first 20K of annual distributions from personal tax shelters as well?
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
Correct. It is socially sanctioned tax deferral. The principle is the same for passive income parked in a corporate shelter to avoid taxes, right?
Then why not exclude the first 20K of annual distributions from personal tax shelters as well?
That’s because it wasn’t taxed as income tax in the first place, right?
Correct. It is socially sanctioned tax deferral. The principle is the same for passive income parked in a corporate shelter to avoid taxes, right?
Then why not exclude the first 20K of annual distributions from personal tax shelters as well?
McTX wrote:
“Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:”
I see what you’re up to there. 😉
Well, you missed your shot back then too for immigration reform as Clinton triangulated toward you on the issue.
Barack Obama has exceeded Clinton’s action in terms of deportations by a fair amount in recent years, I’d be willing to bet, and was willing to join with Republicans as well to secure immigration reform legislation, but he was slapped down too by the Republican Party, so yet another chance passed up to govern on the issue.
Why would that be? Because the far right that has hijacked the Republican Party knows nativism, nationalism, and the specter of foreign enemies inundating our southern border, among so many other divisive issues, mainlines like primo heroin into the base’s bloodstream and gets them to the polls every election cycle, even more than gay bashing, though pretty much on a par with minority bashing.
That, and compromising with a Clinton or an Obama, or now any Democrat, is poison to Republicans in Senate and House primaries.
Also, so much of the Republican base now demands a complete cessation of immigration, period.
RINOs are extinct.
Now, I may disagree with Bill Clinton on some of his underlying assumptions about immigration and immigrants, and I may find his triangulation suspect and a bit cynical, but nowhere in that address did he malign immigrants with the racist, insulting rhetoric and ignorant name-calling against these human beings that Trump has brought to the fore and made acceptable once again (ah, political correctness) for the Republican Party in our public discourse.
And, no, immigrants coming across the border very recently don’t have enough time to achieve citizenship and vote November 9, as Trump lied, while sitting beside the disgrace of a federal employee, border patrol union head who lied on behalf of Trump in that subject the other day. I can’t remember his name.
Now, while other border patrol groups have broken with, or denied support to Trump over the past year, one of Hillary Clinton’s first day acts as President, should she be elected, should be to fire that guy from his federal job and have the FBI investigate his butt and all of the other border agents under the Hatch Act who claim their union has endorsed Trump, which is against the law.
If they mount some sort of work slowdown or persist in the behavior, take a page from Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers and fire the lot of them.
I would let them keep their FEHB health insurance indefinitely, and allow them extensive unemployment benefits, but I’m soft that way and YMMV.
You’ll have to make up your mind whether the union-busting side of that pleases you more or less than the resulting shut down of the border patrol’s activities, until it can man up again, displeases you.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12552082/donald-trump-immigration
The Republican Party that has abandoned you, MCKT, has done all of that.
That said, I’m amenable to Russell’s tax scheme, however, the devil is in the details.
Also, this:
“if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.”
There are plenty of folks left in this country who aren’t moving to Texas.
The corporations are moving the money abroad. So all I want to see, really, is language in whatever legislation that reduces the rate of tax on repatriation that allows me to personally punch the lights out of any corporate officer who questions anyone else’s patriotism on any other issue.
McTX wrote:
“Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:”
I see what you’re up to there. 😉
Well, you missed your shot back then too for immigration reform as Clinton triangulated toward you on the issue.
Barack Obama has exceeded Clinton’s action in terms of deportations by a fair amount in recent years, I’d be willing to bet, and was willing to join with Republicans as well to secure immigration reform legislation, but he was slapped down too by the Republican Party, so yet another chance passed up to govern on the issue.
Why would that be? Because the far right that has hijacked the Republican Party knows nativism, nationalism, and the specter of foreign enemies inundating our southern border, among so many other divisive issues, mainlines like primo heroin into the base’s bloodstream and gets them to the polls every election cycle, even more than gay bashing, though pretty much on a par with minority bashing.
That, and compromising with a Clinton or an Obama, or now any Democrat, is poison to Republicans in Senate and House primaries.
Also, so much of the Republican base now demands a complete cessation of immigration, period.
RINOs are extinct.
Now, I may disagree with Bill Clinton on some of his underlying assumptions about immigration and immigrants, and I may find his triangulation suspect and a bit cynical, but nowhere in that address did he malign immigrants with the racist, insulting rhetoric and ignorant name-calling against these human beings that Trump has brought to the fore and made acceptable once again (ah, political correctness) for the Republican Party in our public discourse.
And, no, immigrants coming across the border very recently don’t have enough time to achieve citizenship and vote November 9, as Trump lied, while sitting beside the disgrace of a federal employee, border patrol union head who lied on behalf of Trump in that subject the other day. I can’t remember his name.
Now, while other border patrol groups have broken with, or denied support to Trump over the past year, one of Hillary Clinton’s first day acts as President, should she be elected, should be to fire that guy from his federal job and have the FBI investigate his butt and all of the other border agents under the Hatch Act who claim their union has endorsed Trump, which is against the law.
If they mount some sort of work slowdown or persist in the behavior, take a page from Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers and fire the lot of them.
I would let them keep their FEHB health insurance indefinitely, and allow them extensive unemployment benefits, but I’m soft that way and YMMV.
You’ll have to make up your mind whether the union-busting side of that pleases you more or less than the resulting shut down of the border patrol’s activities, until it can man up again, displeases you.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12552082/donald-trump-immigration
The Republican Party that has abandoned you, MCKT, has done all of that.
That said, I’m amenable to Russell’s tax scheme, however, the devil is in the details.
Also, this:
“if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.”
There are plenty of folks left in this country who aren’t moving to Texas.
The corporations are moving the money abroad. So all I want to see, really, is language in whatever legislation that reduces the rate of tax on repatriation that allows me to personally punch the lights out of any corporate officer who questions anyone else’s patriotism on any other issue.
McTX wrote:
“Since it’s an open thread, please listen to that bigot, William Jefferson Clinton, on illegal immigration:”
I see what you’re up to there. 😉
Well, you missed your shot back then too for immigration reform as Clinton triangulated toward you on the issue.
Barack Obama has exceeded Clinton’s action in terms of deportations by a fair amount in recent years, I’d be willing to bet, and was willing to join with Republicans as well to secure immigration reform legislation, but he was slapped down too by the Republican Party, so yet another chance passed up to govern on the issue.
Why would that be? Because the far right that has hijacked the Republican Party knows nativism, nationalism, and the specter of foreign enemies inundating our southern border, among so many other divisive issues, mainlines like primo heroin into the base’s bloodstream and gets them to the polls every election cycle, even more than gay bashing, though pretty much on a par with minority bashing.
That, and compromising with a Clinton or an Obama, or now any Democrat, is poison to Republicans in Senate and House primaries.
Also, so much of the Republican base now demands a complete cessation of immigration, period.
RINOs are extinct.
Now, I may disagree with Bill Clinton on some of his underlying assumptions about immigration and immigrants, and I may find his triangulation suspect and a bit cynical, but nowhere in that address did he malign immigrants with the racist, insulting rhetoric and ignorant name-calling against these human beings that Trump has brought to the fore and made acceptable once again (ah, political correctness) for the Republican Party in our public discourse.
And, no, immigrants coming across the border very recently don’t have enough time to achieve citizenship and vote November 9, as Trump lied, while sitting beside the disgrace of a federal employee, border patrol union head who lied on behalf of Trump in that subject the other day. I can’t remember his name.
Now, while other border patrol groups have broken with, or denied support to Trump over the past year, one of Hillary Clinton’s first day acts as President, should she be elected, should be to fire that guy from his federal job and have the FBI investigate his butt and all of the other border agents under the Hatch Act who claim their union has endorsed Trump, which is against the law.
If they mount some sort of work slowdown or persist in the behavior, take a page from Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers and fire the lot of them.
I would let them keep their FEHB health insurance indefinitely, and allow them extensive unemployment benefits, but I’m soft that way and YMMV.
You’ll have to make up your mind whether the union-busting side of that pleases you more or less than the resulting shut down of the border patrol’s activities, until it can man up again, displeases you.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12552082/donald-trump-immigration
The Republican Party that has abandoned you, MCKT, has done all of that.
That said, I’m amenable to Russell’s tax scheme, however, the devil is in the details.
Also, this:
“if you could move across a city or county line and reduce your tax load by 60%, you’d do it. It’s common sense.”
There are plenty of folks left in this country who aren’t moving to Texas.
The corporations are moving the money abroad. So all I want to see, really, is language in whatever legislation that reduces the rate of tax on repatriation that allows me to personally punch the lights out of any corporate officer who questions anyone else’s patriotism on any other issue.
“which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.”
thanks, but I hasten to point out that I don’t the idea is oroginal with me.
I’m pretty sure slarti has suugested it at some point.
In any case, yes, I’m sure there would details to iron out, but IMO the basic idea has merit.
we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
“which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.”
thanks, but I hasten to point out that I don’t the idea is oroginal with me.
I’m pretty sure slarti has suugested it at some point.
In any case, yes, I’m sure there would details to iron out, but IMO the basic idea has merit.
we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
“which is why Russell’s suggestion makes sense.”
thanks, but I hasten to point out that I don’t the idea is oroginal with me.
I’m pretty sure slarti has suugested it at some point.
In any case, yes, I’m sure there would details to iron out, but IMO the basic idea has merit.
we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
please forgive the typos, my tablet keyboard is like typing on tic-tacs
please forgive the typos, my tablet keyboard is like typing on tic-tacs
please forgive the typos, my tablet keyboard is like typing on tic-tacs
Part of the reason the 86 reform act work was that it was a net business tax increase and a net individual tax decrease. All the corporate tax reform proposals swirling around these days are one big corporate tax cut. Where isnthat lost revenue going to be made up? Spending cuts alone won’t do it. That leaves and individual increase.
Try selling that when we’re treated to story after story of corporations with effective rates in the teens or lower.
Part of the reason the 86 reform act work was that it was a net business tax increase and a net individual tax decrease. All the corporate tax reform proposals swirling around these days are one big corporate tax cut. Where isnthat lost revenue going to be made up? Spending cuts alone won’t do it. That leaves and individual increase.
Try selling that when we’re treated to story after story of corporations with effective rates in the teens or lower.
Part of the reason the 86 reform act work was that it was a net business tax increase and a net individual tax decrease. All the corporate tax reform proposals swirling around these days are one big corporate tax cut. Where isnthat lost revenue going to be made up? Spending cuts alone won’t do it. That leaves and individual increase.
Try selling that when we’re treated to story after story of corporations with effective rates in the teens or lower.
McTX: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.
For instance: a company based in Ireland, say, with its HQ, its factories, its stockholders, and many of its customers in Ireland — and therefore “doing business” in Ireland by anybody’s definition — is entirely free to count on the Irish government to fund the infrastructure that supports its operations and the Irish military to secure its overseas interests, paying for those things out of whatever taxes Ireland chooses to impose on itself.
Oh, and it could indulge in any “speech” it likes, under the laws of Ireland — in Ireland, not the US.
–TP
McTX: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.
For instance: a company based in Ireland, say, with its HQ, its factories, its stockholders, and many of its customers in Ireland — and therefore “doing business” in Ireland by anybody’s definition — is entirely free to count on the Irish government to fund the infrastructure that supports its operations and the Irish military to secure its overseas interests, paying for those things out of whatever taxes Ireland chooses to impose on itself.
Oh, and it could indulge in any “speech” it likes, under the laws of Ireland — in Ireland, not the US.
–TP
McTX: Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.
For instance: a company based in Ireland, say, with its HQ, its factories, its stockholders, and many of its customers in Ireland — and therefore “doing business” in Ireland by anybody’s definition — is entirely free to count on the Irish government to fund the infrastructure that supports its operations and the Irish military to secure its overseas interests, paying for those things out of whatever taxes Ireland chooses to impose on itself.
Oh, and it could indulge in any “speech” it likes, under the laws of Ireland — in Ireland, not the US.
–TP
TonyP: “I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.”
Thus my punch in the face of corporate officers who countenance sequestering dollars abroad that could help pay to protect their asses.
But they are free to hide behind the Irish military when trouble comes a-brewing.
TonyP: “I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.”
Thus my punch in the face of corporate officers who countenance sequestering dollars abroad that could help pay to protect their asses.
But they are free to hide behind the Irish military when trouble comes a-brewing.
TonyP: “I’m surprised that none of the obvious answers to this question have been offered.”
Thus my punch in the face of corporate officers who countenance sequestering dollars abroad that could help pay to protect their asses.
But they are free to hide behind the Irish military when trouble comes a-brewing.
The tax code, really?
It would be super-nice if we had a Democratic President and Congress to raise money for the country more fairly. Money that would go to infrastructure, renewable energy projects, research, [so many other things] ..
That’s such a freaking joke with Republicans wanting to shut down government services altogether (unless it involves helping some pony for themselves). That’s what you’re going for McKinney. It’s about you being rich enough to watch everything else go to hell. Thanks for your opinion, but I really and truly hope you lose hugely.
The tax code, really?
It would be super-nice if we had a Democratic President and Congress to raise money for the country more fairly. Money that would go to infrastructure, renewable energy projects, research, [so many other things] ..
That’s such a freaking joke with Republicans wanting to shut down government services altogether (unless it involves helping some pony for themselves). That’s what you’re going for McKinney. It’s about you being rich enough to watch everything else go to hell. Thanks for your opinion, but I really and truly hope you lose hugely.
The tax code, really?
It would be super-nice if we had a Democratic President and Congress to raise money for the country more fairly. Money that would go to infrastructure, renewable energy projects, research, [so many other things] ..
That’s such a freaking joke with Republicans wanting to shut down government services altogether (unless it involves helping some pony for themselves). That’s what you’re going for McKinney. It’s about you being rich enough to watch everything else go to hell. Thanks for your opinion, but I really and truly hope you lose hugely.
Besides, all this concern about living breathing human beings crossing borders, but none whatsoever about capital migrating the porous world.
Besides, all this concern about living breathing human beings crossing borders, but none whatsoever about capital migrating the porous world.
Besides, all this concern about living breathing human beings crossing borders, but none whatsoever about capital migrating the porous world.
Count, that’s because you can see all the (not just illegal, even though that’s who gets talked about most) aliens and human immigrants. And every time you see one, you remember to be outraged.
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
Count, that’s because you can see all the (not just illegal, even though that’s who gets talked about most) aliens and human immigrants. And every time you see one, you remember to be outraged.
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
Count, that’s because you can see all the (not just illegal, even though that’s who gets talked about most) aliens and human immigrants. And every time you see one, you remember to be outraged.
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
russell: we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
Russell,
I get what you mean, even though “lowering the brackets” isn’t quite the right way to phrase it.
What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars. (If everybody ends up paying the same number of dollars as they do now, why bother with the change?)
All the caterwauling about tax rates from the likes of our esteemed friend McKinney is fine as ideology, but nonsense as accounting. People and corporations don’t pay in percentages; they pay in dollars. If we want to raise some specified number of dollars in tax revenue, we have to collect some of those dollars from corporations, some from rich people, and some from not-rich people. To advocate collecting fewer dollars from corporations is to advocate collecting more dollars from individuals; to advocate in addition that we collect fewer dollars from rich people is to advocate for collecting more dollars from not-rich people. It hardly matters whether we rejigger rates or adjust deductions or “close loopholes”. Any revenue-neutral change means somebody pays more and somebody else pays less.
Now, the likes of McKinney can honorably argue that we should collect fewer total dollars from corporations and rich people — as long as they are willing to state explicitly what spending we should cut. (If they’re not willing to do that, they can STFU about “deficits” and “debt”.) But let’s be absolutely clear: collecting fewer total dollars by reducing the tax bills of corporations and rich people means BY DEFINITION that not-rich people will be paying a bigger share of total taxes than they do now. That’s just simple arithmetic.
McKinney ought to tell us whether he disagrees with arithmetic or not, before we take his ideological preferences seriously.
–TP
russell: we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
Russell,
I get what you mean, even though “lowering the brackets” isn’t quite the right way to phrase it.
What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars. (If everybody ends up paying the same number of dollars as they do now, why bother with the change?)
All the caterwauling about tax rates from the likes of our esteemed friend McKinney is fine as ideology, but nonsense as accounting. People and corporations don’t pay in percentages; they pay in dollars. If we want to raise some specified number of dollars in tax revenue, we have to collect some of those dollars from corporations, some from rich people, and some from not-rich people. To advocate collecting fewer dollars from corporations is to advocate collecting more dollars from individuals; to advocate in addition that we collect fewer dollars from rich people is to advocate for collecting more dollars from not-rich people. It hardly matters whether we rejigger rates or adjust deductions or “close loopholes”. Any revenue-neutral change means somebody pays more and somebody else pays less.
Now, the likes of McKinney can honorably argue that we should collect fewer total dollars from corporations and rich people — as long as they are willing to state explicitly what spending we should cut. (If they’re not willing to do that, they can STFU about “deficits” and “debt”.) But let’s be absolutely clear: collecting fewer total dollars by reducing the tax bills of corporations and rich people means BY DEFINITION that not-rich people will be paying a bigger share of total taxes than they do now. That’s just simple arithmetic.
McKinney ought to tell us whether he disagrees with arithmetic or not, before we take his ideological preferences seriously.
–TP
russell: we could probably end up lowering the income tax brackets and end up revenue neutral, or even ahead.
Russell,
I get what you mean, even though “lowering the brackets” isn’t quite the right way to phrase it.
What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars. (If everybody ends up paying the same number of dollars as they do now, why bother with the change?)
All the caterwauling about tax rates from the likes of our esteemed friend McKinney is fine as ideology, but nonsense as accounting. People and corporations don’t pay in percentages; they pay in dollars. If we want to raise some specified number of dollars in tax revenue, we have to collect some of those dollars from corporations, some from rich people, and some from not-rich people. To advocate collecting fewer dollars from corporations is to advocate collecting more dollars from individuals; to advocate in addition that we collect fewer dollars from rich people is to advocate for collecting more dollars from not-rich people. It hardly matters whether we rejigger rates or adjust deductions or “close loopholes”. Any revenue-neutral change means somebody pays more and somebody else pays less.
Now, the likes of McKinney can honorably argue that we should collect fewer total dollars from corporations and rich people — as long as they are willing to state explicitly what spending we should cut. (If they’re not willing to do that, they can STFU about “deficits” and “debt”.) But let’s be absolutely clear: collecting fewer total dollars by reducing the tax bills of corporations and rich people means BY DEFINITION that not-rich people will be paying a bigger share of total taxes than they do now. That’s just simple arithmetic.
McKinney ought to tell us whether he disagrees with arithmetic or not, before we take his ideological preferences seriously.
–TP
Tony,
McKinney would simply respond that lowering the corporate rate will “take the economy to the moon”. I believe he stated something along those lines above.
Of course this flies in the face of generally accepted economic thought, given the high marginal propensity to save by rich people.
Asking them to come up with a list of cuts? Pure fantasy. They never, ever, ever, do that. I have seen conservatives for 40 years dodge that question and blather about fraud, waste, and abuse (at most a pittance in the larger scheme of things).
Just look at Ryan’s magic asterisk.
And taxes? What about the austerity tax? The McKinneys of the world are just fine with this tax. It is in their interests, so they support it.
This is not difficult.
Tony,
McKinney would simply respond that lowering the corporate rate will “take the economy to the moon”. I believe he stated something along those lines above.
Of course this flies in the face of generally accepted economic thought, given the high marginal propensity to save by rich people.
Asking them to come up with a list of cuts? Pure fantasy. They never, ever, ever, do that. I have seen conservatives for 40 years dodge that question and blather about fraud, waste, and abuse (at most a pittance in the larger scheme of things).
Just look at Ryan’s magic asterisk.
And taxes? What about the austerity tax? The McKinneys of the world are just fine with this tax. It is in their interests, so they support it.
This is not difficult.
Tony,
McKinney would simply respond that lowering the corporate rate will “take the economy to the moon”. I believe he stated something along those lines above.
Of course this flies in the face of generally accepted economic thought, given the high marginal propensity to save by rich people.
Asking them to come up with a list of cuts? Pure fantasy. They never, ever, ever, do that. I have seen conservatives for 40 years dodge that question and blather about fraud, waste, and abuse (at most a pittance in the larger scheme of things).
Just look at Ryan’s magic asterisk.
And taxes? What about the austerity tax? The McKinneys of the world are just fine with this tax. It is in their interests, so they support it.
This is not difficult.
Coulter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/coulter-we-want-jews-to-be-perfected/
My favorite part is Donnie Deutsche claiming he had her on the show to talk about her “brand”, the shithead new media f*ck.
Imagine Himmler sitting with a German Dick Cavett on a talk show gamely discussing the former’s method of gutting and sending dead chickens to market and proposing a marketing strategy whereby this “business model” could be applied to other markets, such as the Jewish problem.
There is killing coming to America unlike anyone has ever imagined.
Kill them or be killed.
Coulter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/coulter-we-want-jews-to-be-perfected/
My favorite part is Donnie Deutsche claiming he had her on the show to talk about her “brand”, the shithead new media f*ck.
Imagine Himmler sitting with a German Dick Cavett on a talk show gamely discussing the former’s method of gutting and sending dead chickens to market and proposing a marketing strategy whereby this “business model” could be applied to other markets, such as the Jewish problem.
There is killing coming to America unlike anyone has ever imagined.
Kill them or be killed.
Coulter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/coulter-we-want-jews-to-be-perfected/
My favorite part is Donnie Deutsche claiming he had her on the show to talk about her “brand”, the shithead new media f*ck.
Imagine Himmler sitting with a German Dick Cavett on a talk show gamely discussing the former’s method of gutting and sending dead chickens to market and proposing a marketing strategy whereby this “business model” could be applied to other markets, such as the Jewish problem.
There is killing coming to America unlike anyone has ever imagined.
Kill them or be killed.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/donald-trumps-kremlin-connection-comes-through-again
The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/donald-trumps-kremlin-connection-comes-through-again
The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/donald-trumps-kremlin-connection-comes-through-again
The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.
Count, I think McK made himself pretty clear–voting for Putin is the right thing to do (we’ve got to take care of top marginal tax rates). Remember the blasted hellscape we were in the 90s?
Count, I think McK made himself pretty clear–voting for Putin is the right thing to do (we’ve got to take care of top marginal tax rates). Remember the blasted hellscape we were in the 90s?
Count, I think McK made himself pretty clear–voting for Putin is the right thing to do (we’ve got to take care of top marginal tax rates). Remember the blasted hellscape we were in the 90s?
My last effort at communication here and then I’m back to work.
First, the only tax topic I addressed here was the effect of double taxation on corporate earnings and the phenomena of US dollars and jobs going overseas. Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector. More money, less taxes, more fuel. Sure, some people skim and save. Big deal. Centrally planned economies don’t do so well. Surely you don’t need examples.
In response, the consensus solution here, Russell excepted, is more cowbell. Good luck with that. The economy is going great guns right now with all of the pro-growth strategies the current administration has rolled out.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing. The left is hell on raising taxes but offers zero in the way of making the gov’t more efficient, using what it has more wisely. You’d think I’d suggested a return to chattel slavery. So, keep doing what you’re doing. The party will never end. Nothing the left/Democrats are doing is anything but awesome. Truly, anyone who believes otherwise should be banished.
As for cutting spending, there are several approaches. First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll. Third, raise the retirement age and means test on social security. Fourth, assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor. Not eliminate, but assess for utility, efficiency, whether the ROI so to speak is marginal or beneficial. Fifth, revisit weapons development and procurement. I’m hardly qualified to offer specifics, but the serving, younger officers I’ve spoken with are mortified by the process. I assume it can be fixed, but not without–as is true for all gov’t institutions–a *cultural paradigm shift*.
Finally, end ACA. It’s a train wreck, as predicted.
Now, everyone can go back to complaining about not being able to have a conversation and discuss policy anymore. I’m going back to work.
My last effort at communication here and then I’m back to work.
First, the only tax topic I addressed here was the effect of double taxation on corporate earnings and the phenomena of US dollars and jobs going overseas. Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector. More money, less taxes, more fuel. Sure, some people skim and save. Big deal. Centrally planned economies don’t do so well. Surely you don’t need examples.
In response, the consensus solution here, Russell excepted, is more cowbell. Good luck with that. The economy is going great guns right now with all of the pro-growth strategies the current administration has rolled out.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing. The left is hell on raising taxes but offers zero in the way of making the gov’t more efficient, using what it has more wisely. You’d think I’d suggested a return to chattel slavery. So, keep doing what you’re doing. The party will never end. Nothing the left/Democrats are doing is anything but awesome. Truly, anyone who believes otherwise should be banished.
As for cutting spending, there are several approaches. First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll. Third, raise the retirement age and means test on social security. Fourth, assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor. Not eliminate, but assess for utility, efficiency, whether the ROI so to speak is marginal or beneficial. Fifth, revisit weapons development and procurement. I’m hardly qualified to offer specifics, but the serving, younger officers I’ve spoken with are mortified by the process. I assume it can be fixed, but not without–as is true for all gov’t institutions–a *cultural paradigm shift*.
Finally, end ACA. It’s a train wreck, as predicted.
Now, everyone can go back to complaining about not being able to have a conversation and discuss policy anymore. I’m going back to work.
My last effort at communication here and then I’m back to work.
First, the only tax topic I addressed here was the effect of double taxation on corporate earnings and the phenomena of US dollars and jobs going overseas. Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector. More money, less taxes, more fuel. Sure, some people skim and save. Big deal. Centrally planned economies don’t do so well. Surely you don’t need examples.
In response, the consensus solution here, Russell excepted, is more cowbell. Good luck with that. The economy is going great guns right now with all of the pro-growth strategies the current administration has rolled out.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing. The left is hell on raising taxes but offers zero in the way of making the gov’t more efficient, using what it has more wisely. You’d think I’d suggested a return to chattel slavery. So, keep doing what you’re doing. The party will never end. Nothing the left/Democrats are doing is anything but awesome. Truly, anyone who believes otherwise should be banished.
As for cutting spending, there are several approaches. First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll. Third, raise the retirement age and means test on social security. Fourth, assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor. Not eliminate, but assess for utility, efficiency, whether the ROI so to speak is marginal or beneficial. Fifth, revisit weapons development and procurement. I’m hardly qualified to offer specifics, but the serving, younger officers I’ve spoken with are mortified by the process. I assume it can be fixed, but not without–as is true for all gov’t institutions–a *cultural paradigm shift*.
Finally, end ACA. It’s a train wreck, as predicted.
Now, everyone can go back to complaining about not being able to have a conversation and discuss policy anymore. I’m going back to work.
Centrally planned economies don’t do so well.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
Centrally planned economies don’t do so well.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
Centrally planned economies don’t do so well.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
All concrete proposals, McKT. If I have time later today, I’ll try to address some of them more substantively.
I’ll leave the cowbell (good image) at home, but maybe add a string section.
All concrete proposals, McKT. If I have time later today, I’ll try to address some of them more substantively.
I’ll leave the cowbell (good image) at home, but maybe add a string section.
All concrete proposals, McKT. If I have time later today, I’ll try to address some of them more substantively.
I’ll leave the cowbell (good image) at home, but maybe add a string section.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
i’m sure HRC has, somewhere. maybe not explicitly, but if you know how to read between the lines you’ll see she lays out her nefarious agenda quite clearly.
1. take all the guns
2. appoint a bunch of gay Puerto Rican bus boys to SCOTUS
3. seize the means of production
she’s not fooling anyone.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
i’m sure HRC has, somewhere. maybe not explicitly, but if you know how to read between the lines you’ll see she lays out her nefarious agenda quite clearly.
1. take all the guns
2. appoint a bunch of gay Puerto Rican bus boys to SCOTUS
3. seize the means of production
she’s not fooling anyone.
Has someone suggested the federal government mandate a specific level of shoe production?
i’m sure HRC has, somewhere. maybe not explicitly, but if you know how to read between the lines you’ll see she lays out her nefarious agenda quite clearly.
1. take all the guns
2. appoint a bunch of gay Puerto Rican bus boys to SCOTUS
3. seize the means of production
she’s not fooling anyone.
“The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.”
Time to dust off the old VCR tape of Red Dawn, then. I’m sure that Count will be take charge of the resistance, calling WOLVERINES from his mountain redoubt.
“The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.”
Time to dust off the old VCR tape of Red Dawn, then. I’m sure that Count will be take charge of the resistance, calling WOLVERINES from his mountain redoubt.
“The Republican Party is infiltrated to the very top with Putin’s Russian agents.
How do we know which of our neighbors and friends and family members, who carry the Republican banner, are with us or with the Russians?
Check under your beds. They are everywhere.”
Time to dust off the old VCR tape of Red Dawn, then. I’m sure that Count will be take charge of the resistance, calling WOLVERINES from his mountain redoubt.
Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?
Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?
Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?
Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector.
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Ask any defense contractor.
Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector.
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Ask any defense contractor.
Contra BP, the money that fuels the private sector comes from the private sector.
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Ask any defense contractor.
Red Dawn was kid stuff:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alt-right-dreams-up-fantasy-white-nationalist-trump-cabinet
Against the far Right millions who have hijacked the Republican Party, I wanna be Leon: The Professional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R-cTX0i2hQ
And I hope they bring EVERYONE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk
Red Dawn was kid stuff:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alt-right-dreams-up-fantasy-white-nationalist-trump-cabinet
Against the far Right millions who have hijacked the Republican Party, I wanna be Leon: The Professional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R-cTX0i2hQ
And I hope they bring EVERYONE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk
Red Dawn was kid stuff:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alt-right-dreams-up-fantasy-white-nationalist-trump-cabinet
Against the far Right millions who have hijacked the Republican Party, I wanna be Leon: The Professional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R-cTX0i2hQ
And I hope they bring EVERYONE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Yes. It may circulate within the private sector for a time, but we all know where it comes from. I haven’t seen any money with, say, “General Electric” printed on it.
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Yes. It may circulate within the private sector for a time, but we all know where it comes from. I haven’t seen any money with, say, “General Electric” printed on it.
A string of assertions does not an argument make, McTex, but the above one was a particular howler.
Yes. It may circulate within the private sector for a time, but we all know where it comes from. I haven’t seen any money with, say, “General Electric” printed on it.
First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Well we have an example of how this works in the form of the GOP Congress’ budget for the IRS for the past 4+ years or so (as clear a demonstration that they don’t give a sh1t about the deficit as any). How has it worked out?
Let’s see, the IRS has cut most/all of its training and travel budget. The time it takes to get someone on the phone at the IRS for help is at record levels – if you can get through at all (in fact, IIRC people were selling places in line somehow). Same with walk-in service centers.
Audits and guidance projects are way down. Meanwhile, some gigantic percentage of IRS staff will be eligible for retirement in the next few years (I think it’s over 50%), so the most experienced and knowledgeable employees are walking out the door and not being replaced. Meanwhile, retirement and attrition means IRS essentially loses personnel randomly regardless of need. Have a large increase in transfer pricing cases but have an exodus of transfer pricing staff? Too bad, suck it up (and taxpayers have to suck it up too, BTW).
It’s a train wreck that won’t be fixed for probably more than 10 years, even if the administration’s budget request was funded in full for the next decade.
First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Well we have an example of how this works in the form of the GOP Congress’ budget for the IRS for the past 4+ years or so (as clear a demonstration that they don’t give a sh1t about the deficit as any). How has it worked out?
Let’s see, the IRS has cut most/all of its training and travel budget. The time it takes to get someone on the phone at the IRS for help is at record levels – if you can get through at all (in fact, IIRC people were selling places in line somehow). Same with walk-in service centers.
Audits and guidance projects are way down. Meanwhile, some gigantic percentage of IRS staff will be eligible for retirement in the next few years (I think it’s over 50%), so the most experienced and knowledgeable employees are walking out the door and not being replaced. Meanwhile, retirement and attrition means IRS essentially loses personnel randomly regardless of need. Have a large increase in transfer pricing cases but have an exodus of transfer pricing staff? Too bad, suck it up (and taxpayers have to suck it up too, BTW).
It’s a train wreck that won’t be fixed for probably more than 10 years, even if the administration’s budget request was funded in full for the next decade.
First, eliminate built in spending increases. Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Well we have an example of how this works in the form of the GOP Congress’ budget for the IRS for the past 4+ years or so (as clear a demonstration that they don’t give a sh1t about the deficit as any). How has it worked out?
Let’s see, the IRS has cut most/all of its training and travel budget. The time it takes to get someone on the phone at the IRS for help is at record levels – if you can get through at all (in fact, IIRC people were selling places in line somehow). Same with walk-in service centers.
Audits and guidance projects are way down. Meanwhile, some gigantic percentage of IRS staff will be eligible for retirement in the next few years (I think it’s over 50%), so the most experienced and knowledgeable employees are walking out the door and not being replaced. Meanwhile, retirement and attrition means IRS essentially loses personnel randomly regardless of need. Have a large increase in transfer pricing cases but have an exodus of transfer pricing staff? Too bad, suck it up (and taxpayers have to suck it up too, BTW).
It’s a train wreck that won’t be fixed for probably more than 10 years, even if the administration’s budget request was funded in full for the next decade.
Does the proposed hiring freeze apply to the armed forces too?
Does the proposed hiring freeze apply to the armed forces too?
Does the proposed hiring freeze apply to the armed forces too?
Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
it’s already shrinking. the federal govt is now smaller than it was in 1966. and as a percentage of overall US employment, the federal govt is smaller than it has been since the late 30s.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/
Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
it’s already shrinking. the federal govt is now smaller than it was in 1966. and as a percentage of overall US employment, the federal govt is smaller than it has been since the late 30s.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/
Second, freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
it’s already shrinking. the federal govt is now smaller than it was in 1966. and as a percentage of overall US employment, the federal govt is smaller than it has been since the late 30s.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/
“What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars”
yes. and i want people who derive their income from capital investments to pay relatively more, and people who derive their income from work that they do to pay relatively less.
corporate income taxes are only about 10% of public revenue at the federal level. if corporate taxez are an impediment to growth, let’s trade them for a unified tax regime for incomes – same rate for all forms of income.
i suspect that we could do all of that, lower the tax rates, and net out even.
“What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars”
yes. and i want people who derive their income from capital investments to pay relatively more, and people who derive their income from work that they do to pay relatively less.
corporate income taxes are only about 10% of public revenue at the federal level. if corporate taxez are an impediment to growth, let’s trade them for a unified tax regime for incomes – same rate for all forms of income.
i suspect that we could do all of that, lower the tax rates, and net out even.
“What I’d emphasize is that “revenue neutral” tax changes must BY DEFINITION mean that some people pay more dollars so that other people can pay fewer dollars”
yes. and i want people who derive their income from capital investments to pay relatively more, and people who derive their income from work that they do to pay relatively less.
corporate income taxes are only about 10% of public revenue at the federal level. if corporate taxez are an impediment to growth, let’s trade them for a unified tax regime for incomes – same rate for all forms of income.
i suspect that we could do all of that, lower the tax rates, and net out even.
McKinney has the solution!
1. Eliminate built-in spending increases.
Does this mean don’t index for inflation? No raises for soldiers, sailors, or unarmed civil servants? No increase in the exemptions or deductions on the 1040? Or what? Maybe it means freezing the total dollars spent on unemployment benefits, even when claims increase in a recession, because “automatic stabilizer” programs are a commie plot.
2. Freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
So, shut down military recruiting? Use non-retired park rangers to replace retiring IRS auditors, on the principle that gov’t employees are interchangeable like Lego bricks?
3. Raise the retirement age and means test on social security.
Not raise the FICA cap, of course. That would partly undo the decades-long GOP con that Saint Reagan instituted: keep taxes low for the rich by borrowing from the SS Trust Fund that working people built up, and then turn around and tell the workers they’re SOL because “Hey, we already spent the money.” How Trumpish.
4. Assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor.
Labor, but not Commerce? Energy, but not Interior? Education but not Justice? Not to mention Defense, about which more below. Assessing the “efficacy and reach” of every gov’t department is not only a good idea, it’s something that is being done continuously. Not by McTX, or me, but by our hired hands in Congress and the White House. Who the hell else could do it?
5. Revisit weapons development and procurement.
At long last love. Sure, let’s do that. We can set up an independent commission. We can make the Count chairman, but people can call it the McKinney-Russell Commission for the sake of dignity. Marty and I can serve on the staff. We could make some awesome suggestions to … well, to whom? Congress and the President? Okay, but is our Commission going to appoint them to office?
–TP
McKinney has the solution!
1. Eliminate built-in spending increases.
Does this mean don’t index for inflation? No raises for soldiers, sailors, or unarmed civil servants? No increase in the exemptions or deductions on the 1040? Or what? Maybe it means freezing the total dollars spent on unemployment benefits, even when claims increase in a recession, because “automatic stabilizer” programs are a commie plot.
2. Freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
So, shut down military recruiting? Use non-retired park rangers to replace retiring IRS auditors, on the principle that gov’t employees are interchangeable like Lego bricks?
3. Raise the retirement age and means test on social security.
Not raise the FICA cap, of course. That would partly undo the decades-long GOP con that Saint Reagan instituted: keep taxes low for the rich by borrowing from the SS Trust Fund that working people built up, and then turn around and tell the workers they’re SOL because “Hey, we already spent the money.” How Trumpish.
4. Assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor.
Labor, but not Commerce? Energy, but not Interior? Education but not Justice? Not to mention Defense, about which more below. Assessing the “efficacy and reach” of every gov’t department is not only a good idea, it’s something that is being done continuously. Not by McTX, or me, but by our hired hands in Congress and the White House. Who the hell else could do it?
5. Revisit weapons development and procurement.
At long last love. Sure, let’s do that. We can set up an independent commission. We can make the Count chairman, but people can call it the McKinney-Russell Commission for the sake of dignity. Marty and I can serve on the staff. We could make some awesome suggestions to … well, to whom? Congress and the President? Okay, but is our Commission going to appoint them to office?
–TP
McKinney has the solution!
1. Eliminate built-in spending increases.
Does this mean don’t index for inflation? No raises for soldiers, sailors, or unarmed civil servants? No increase in the exemptions or deductions on the 1040? Or what? Maybe it means freezing the total dollars spent on unemployment benefits, even when claims increase in a recession, because “automatic stabilizer” programs are a commie plot.
2. Freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
So, shut down military recruiting? Use non-retired park rangers to replace retiring IRS auditors, on the principle that gov’t employees are interchangeable like Lego bricks?
3. Raise the retirement age and means test on social security.
Not raise the FICA cap, of course. That would partly undo the decades-long GOP con that Saint Reagan instituted: keep taxes low for the rich by borrowing from the SS Trust Fund that working people built up, and then turn around and tell the workers they’re SOL because “Hey, we already spent the money.” How Trumpish.
4. Assess the efficacy and reach of the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture (end crop subsidies) and Labor.
Labor, but not Commerce? Energy, but not Interior? Education but not Justice? Not to mention Defense, about which more below. Assessing the “efficacy and reach” of every gov’t department is not only a good idea, it’s something that is being done continuously. Not by McTX, or me, but by our hired hands in Congress and the White House. Who the hell else could do it?
5. Revisit weapons development and procurement.
At long last love. Sure, let’s do that. We can set up an independent commission. We can make the Count chairman, but people can call it the McKinney-Russell Commission for the sake of dignity. Marty and I can serve on the staff. We could make some awesome suggestions to … well, to whom? Congress and the President? Okay, but is our Commission going to appoint them to office?
–TP
also – we can discuss means testing SS, maybe, depending on what the quid pro quo is.
raising the retirement age, however, is crap. it’s already 67 for anyone born after 1960.
it’s fine for guys like you and me, with our nice white collar professional jobs, to talk about working into later life.
for a hell of a lot of people, working until 70 or nearly so is just not a practical reality.
the reason that SS is remotely in financial distress is because we pissed away the cushion, and now nobody wants to pony up to pay it back.
i think that’s bullshit.
the nation has been free-riding on the backs of a generation of working people, who have been paying in at a rate exceeding outflows for almost 35 years now.
we had the use of that money, now it’s time to pay those folks back.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing.
I seem to recall (correct me if I’m wrong) that back under Bush II we cut taxes. So if the economy isn’t growing, does that mean that the beneficial effects of tax cuts wear off? After how long? And does that mean we have to keep doing more of them? When does diminishing returns set in?
freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Unfortunately for this clever plan, people aren’t fungible. I’m sure even the law has specialization, such that you can’t just plug in a wills and trusts expert when you want a prosecution for battery done. (Or vis versa.) It’s even worse when you have more fields than just law — at the federal government has lots more.
You can, I suppose, try for no net new hiring. Once you’ve set up, and staffed, the process to make sure everything balances across the government. But you are probably time and money ahead just dealing with staff requirements and requests as they already are.
If you really want to do something useful on this front, you’d do better to come up with a way to lay off surplus government workers. One which doesn’t lead us directly back to the ills of the spoils system — which the current civil service approach was set up to address. Or, probably more feasibly, write a constitutional amendment to ban unions and union bargaining for government employees. If they want the civil service protections, they can take the pay on offer; otherwise go work in the private sector with the rest of us.
also – we can discuss means testing SS, maybe, depending on what the quid pro quo is.
raising the retirement age, however, is crap. it’s already 67 for anyone born after 1960.
it’s fine for guys like you and me, with our nice white collar professional jobs, to talk about working into later life.
for a hell of a lot of people, working until 70 or nearly so is just not a practical reality.
the reason that SS is remotely in financial distress is because we pissed away the cushion, and now nobody wants to pony up to pay it back.
i think that’s bullshit.
the nation has been free-riding on the backs of a generation of working people, who have been paying in at a rate exceeding outflows for almost 35 years now.
we had the use of that money, now it’s time to pay those folks back.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing.
I seem to recall (correct me if I’m wrong) that back under Bush II we cut taxes. So if the economy isn’t growing, does that mean that the beneficial effects of tax cuts wear off? After how long? And does that mean we have to keep doing more of them? When does diminishing returns set in?
freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Unfortunately for this clever plan, people aren’t fungible. I’m sure even the law has specialization, such that you can’t just plug in a wills and trusts expert when you want a prosecution for battery done. (Or vis versa.) It’s even worse when you have more fields than just law — at the federal government has lots more.
You can, I suppose, try for no net new hiring. Once you’ve set up, and staffed, the process to make sure everything balances across the government. But you are probably time and money ahead just dealing with staff requirements and requests as they already are.
If you really want to do something useful on this front, you’d do better to come up with a way to lay off surplus government workers. One which doesn’t lead us directly back to the ills of the spoils system — which the current civil service approach was set up to address. Or, probably more feasibly, write a constitutional amendment to ban unions and union bargaining for government employees. If they want the civil service protections, they can take the pay on offer; otherwise go work in the private sector with the rest of us.
also – we can discuss means testing SS, maybe, depending on what the quid pro quo is.
raising the retirement age, however, is crap. it’s already 67 for anyone born after 1960.
it’s fine for guys like you and me, with our nice white collar professional jobs, to talk about working into later life.
for a hell of a lot of people, working until 70 or nearly so is just not a practical reality.
the reason that SS is remotely in financial distress is because we pissed away the cushion, and now nobody wants to pony up to pay it back.
i think that’s bullshit.
the nation has been free-riding on the backs of a generation of working people, who have been paying in at a rate exceeding outflows for almost 35 years now.
we had the use of that money, now it’s time to pay those folks back.
I also noted that we increase spending every year, we borrow to cover that increased spending and our economy isn’t growing.
I seem to recall (correct me if I’m wrong) that back under Bush II we cut taxes. So if the economy isn’t growing, does that mean that the beneficial effects of tax cuts wear off? After how long? And does that mean we have to keep doing more of them? When does diminishing returns set in?
freeze gov’t hiring, let attrition and retirement shrink the federal payroll.
Unfortunately for this clever plan, people aren’t fungible. I’m sure even the law has specialization, such that you can’t just plug in a wills and trusts expert when you want a prosecution for battery done. (Or vis versa.) It’s even worse when you have more fields than just law — at the federal government has lots more.
You can, I suppose, try for no net new hiring. Once you’ve set up, and staffed, the process to make sure everything balances across the government. But you are probably time and money ahead just dealing with staff requirements and requests as they already are.
If you really want to do something useful on this front, you’d do better to come up with a way to lay off surplus government workers. One which doesn’t lead us directly back to the ills of the spoils system — which the current civil service approach was set up to address. Or, probably more feasibly, write a constitutional amendment to ban unions and union bargaining for government employees. If they want the civil service protections, they can take the pay on offer; otherwise go work in the private sector with the rest of us.
last but not least – if more cowbell is on the agenda, i am never excepted.
not for nothing, but i own like 11 or 13 of them.
last but not least – if more cowbell is on the agenda, i am never excepted.
not for nothing, but i own like 11 or 13 of them.
last but not least – if more cowbell is on the agenda, i am never excepted.
not for nothing, but i own like 11 or 13 of them.
Dragging the thread in a different direction (just because it’s my open thread and I can):
I have been really impressed by the number of articles I am seeing in the local papers. Professional athletes and sports writers, who have been around locker rooms their entire lives. Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.
Profanity? Sure. Crude jokes? That, too. But bragging of forcing themselves on anyone? No. Just flat no.
The reality seems to be that what we are seeing is far more (although even there exceptional) a “rich, entitled guy” thing than a “locker room conversation” thing. But perhaps those are the only environments that Trump (and, apparently, Guilliani) experience.
Dragging the thread in a different direction (just because it’s my open thread and I can):
I have been really impressed by the number of articles I am seeing in the local papers. Professional athletes and sports writers, who have been around locker rooms their entire lives. Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.
Profanity? Sure. Crude jokes? That, too. But bragging of forcing themselves on anyone? No. Just flat no.
The reality seems to be that what we are seeing is far more (although even there exceptional) a “rich, entitled guy” thing than a “locker room conversation” thing. But perhaps those are the only environments that Trump (and, apparently, Guilliani) experience.
Dragging the thread in a different direction (just because it’s my open thread and I can):
I have been really impressed by the number of articles I am seeing in the local papers. Professional athletes and sports writers, who have been around locker rooms their entire lives. Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.
Profanity? Sure. Crude jokes? That, too. But bragging of forcing themselves on anyone? No. Just flat no.
The reality seems to be that what we are seeing is far more (although even there exceptional) a “rich, entitled guy” thing than a “locker room conversation” thing. But perhaps those are the only environments that Trump (and, apparently, Guilliani) experience.
“Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?”
I’m going to be Chris Hemsworth
“Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?”
I’m going to be Chris Hemsworth
“Is the Count Patrick Swayze, Powers Boothe, or Harry Dean Stanton? Can I be C. Thomas Howell?”
I’m going to be Chris Hemsworth
I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.
I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.
I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.
“I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.”
Ok, but he probably talks about women like Trump does.
And, on a slightly less serious note, like a bunch of entitled rock stars and movie stars and pro athletes. While I wouldn’t call it locker room talk, I’m pretty sure there is a segment of society that has that view of what they are allowed to do, anything they want. Ask Howard Stern. Or Trumps good friend Tom Brady.
“I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.”
Ok, but he probably talks about women like Trump does.
And, on a slightly less serious note, like a bunch of entitled rock stars and movie stars and pro athletes. While I wouldn’t call it locker room talk, I’m pretty sure there is a segment of society that has that view of what they are allowed to do, anything they want. Ask Howard Stern. Or Trumps good friend Tom Brady.
“I don’t know, Marty. I had you figured for Charlie Sheen.”
Ok, but he probably talks about women like Trump does.
And, on a slightly less serious note, like a bunch of entitled rock stars and movie stars and pro athletes. While I wouldn’t call it locker room talk, I’m pretty sure there is a segment of society that has that view of what they are allowed to do, anything they want. Ask Howard Stern. Or Trumps good friend Tom Brady.
“Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.”
I expect so.
It’s pretty easy finding where to hear it and see it, now that Trump has brought it front and center into the political discourse.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/dispatch-from-basket-of-deplorables.html
Nice touch on a family outing.
I may start going to Trump rallies and see if a guy like swanning around with that T-shirt can handle me walking up to his wife and daughters and addressing with his limited Republican vocabulary.
We’ll see who emerges alive.
“Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.”
I expect so.
It’s pretty easy finding where to hear it and see it, now that Trump has brought it front and center into the political discourse.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/dispatch-from-basket-of-deplorables.html
Nice touch on a family outing.
I may start going to Trump rallies and see if a guy like swanning around with that T-shirt can handle me walking up to his wife and daughters and addressing with his limited Republican vocabulary.
We’ll see who emerges alive.
“Without exception, they are rather vehement that nobody talks the way Trump is recorded speaking.”
I expect so.
It’s pretty easy finding where to hear it and see it, now that Trump has brought it front and center into the political discourse.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/dispatch-from-basket-of-deplorables.html
Nice touch on a family outing.
I may start going to Trump rallies and see if a guy like swanning around with that T-shirt can handle me walking up to his wife and daughters and addressing with his limited Republican vocabulary.
We’ll see who emerges alive.
Is it just a coincidence that not one of McKinney’s proposed policy prescriptions involve any sacrifice by people of wealth?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
It’s a tell.
Is it just a coincidence that not one of McKinney’s proposed policy prescriptions involve any sacrifice by people of wealth?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
It’s a tell.
Is it just a coincidence that not one of McKinney’s proposed policy prescriptions involve any sacrifice by people of wealth?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
It’s a tell.
My take on the Trump tape…
The sexism…meh. We already know he is a sexist pig.
1. The crudity of the language. It’s not like crude language is never uttered in private, but that was pretty crude. He could have gotten over that, but for…
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
My take on the Trump tape…
The sexism…meh. We already know he is a sexist pig.
1. The crudity of the language. It’s not like crude language is never uttered in private, but that was pretty crude. He could have gotten over that, but for…
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
My take on the Trump tape…
The sexism…meh. We already know he is a sexist pig.
1. The crudity of the language. It’s not like crude language is never uttered in private, but that was pretty crude. He could have gotten over that, but for…
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
yeah, that’s what the “locker room talk” defense misses. if some guy in a locker room is sharing explicit details about what he and his lady did last night, i’ll be put off by his lack of discretion. but someone talking about how he attacks unfamiliar women in order to get them into bed is the kind of thing that would start me deciding if he’s said enough to make me call the cops, or if i just need to file it away in case something happens.
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
yeah, that’s what the “locker room talk” defense misses. if some guy in a locker room is sharing explicit details about what he and his lady did last night, i’ll be put off by his lack of discretion. but someone talking about how he attacks unfamiliar women in order to get them into bed is the kind of thing that would start me deciding if he’s said enough to make me call the cops, or if i just need to file it away in case something happens.
2. An astounding level of a piggish sense of sexually exploitative entitlement. Overwhelming. Beyond the pale.
yeah, that’s what the “locker room talk” defense misses. if some guy in a locker room is sharing explicit details about what he and his lady did last night, i’ll be put off by his lack of discretion. but someone talking about how he attacks unfamiliar women in order to get them into bed is the kind of thing that would start me deciding if he’s said enough to make me call the cops, or if i just need to file it away in case something happens.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-brianna-kielar-problem-with-trump-video
Why didn’t someone ask the good doctor about the gross sexual banter that went on in the surgical theater when he was supposedly doing brain surgery
on female patients?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-brianna-kielar-problem-with-trump-video
Why didn’t someone ask the good doctor about the gross sexual banter that went on in the surgical theater when he was supposedly doing brain surgery
on female patients?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-brianna-kielar-problem-with-trump-video
Why didn’t someone ask the good doctor about the gross sexual banter that went on in the surgical theater when he was supposedly doing brain surgery
on female patients?
Funny thing about double taxation. I have a job, for which I get paid. I pay taxes on that income. I’ve been lucky enough to have some of that income left over and put it into investments that grew. When I sold the assets to reap the extra money, I had to pay taxes on the investment income. And after I had already paid taxes on the money I invested in the first place. That’s just damn unfair.
Funny thing about double taxation. I have a job, for which I get paid. I pay taxes on that income. I’ve been lucky enough to have some of that income left over and put it into investments that grew. When I sold the assets to reap the extra money, I had to pay taxes on the investment income. And after I had already paid taxes on the money I invested in the first place. That’s just damn unfair.
Funny thing about double taxation. I have a job, for which I get paid. I pay taxes on that income. I’ve been lucky enough to have some of that income left over and put it into investments that grew. When I sold the assets to reap the extra money, I had to pay taxes on the investment income. And after I had already paid taxes on the money I invested in the first place. That’s just damn unfair.
Which dollars were taxes twice?
Which dollars were taxes twice?
Which dollars were taxes twice?
“taxed twice”
“taxed twice”
“taxed twice”
How fortunate, then, that you aren’t paying taxes a second time on money you invested. Just on the increase. Interesting how that detail always seems to get glided over by those arguing about how they are so ill done by.
It also occurs to me that those arguing that lower business taxes would spur economic activity and help the working man are, vitrually always, not themselves in that category. They are instead the people whose incomes will increase directly.
And, apparently, not much interested in the opinions of those working men. Who are, apparently, not informed enough about what is in their interests to have a worthwhile opinion — especially if that opinion involves taxing the rich more. (Not to say that people don’t do things that are not in their interests. Just that making the decision to do something stupid is their right. Their betters, whether the state or the business owners, don’t get to take care of them like it or don’t.)
How fortunate, then, that you aren’t paying taxes a second time on money you invested. Just on the increase. Interesting how that detail always seems to get glided over by those arguing about how they are so ill done by.
It also occurs to me that those arguing that lower business taxes would spur economic activity and help the working man are, vitrually always, not themselves in that category. They are instead the people whose incomes will increase directly.
And, apparently, not much interested in the opinions of those working men. Who are, apparently, not informed enough about what is in their interests to have a worthwhile opinion — especially if that opinion involves taxing the rich more. (Not to say that people don’t do things that are not in their interests. Just that making the decision to do something stupid is their right. Their betters, whether the state or the business owners, don’t get to take care of them like it or don’t.)
How fortunate, then, that you aren’t paying taxes a second time on money you invested. Just on the increase. Interesting how that detail always seems to get glided over by those arguing about how they are so ill done by.
It also occurs to me that those arguing that lower business taxes would spur economic activity and help the working man are, vitrually always, not themselves in that category. They are instead the people whose incomes will increase directly.
And, apparently, not much interested in the opinions of those working men. Who are, apparently, not informed enough about what is in their interests to have a worthwhile opinion — especially if that opinion involves taxing the rich more. (Not to say that people don’t do things that are not in their interests. Just that making the decision to do something stupid is their right. Their betters, whether the state or the business owners, don’t get to take care of them like it or don’t.)
If the McKinney’s of the world want to avoid “double taxation”, it is easily done.
But buy and large, they don’t take that path. They value highly that state sanctioned corporate veil. Evil government, indeed!
To top it off, they think somebody else should pay for it.
If the McKinney’s of the world want to avoid “double taxation”, it is easily done.
But buy and large, they don’t take that path. They value highly that state sanctioned corporate veil. Evil government, indeed!
To top it off, they think somebody else should pay for it.
If the McKinney’s of the world want to avoid “double taxation”, it is easily done.
But buy and large, they don’t take that path. They value highly that state sanctioned corporate veil. Evil government, indeed!
To top it off, they think somebody else should pay for it.
Dividends are distributed “profits,” right? Profits, for the purposes of dividends, are net of the issuing company’s expenses, including taxes. If you look at taxes as one of the costs to the company, dividends are the distribution of what I’ll call “final profits” (i.e. what’s left over when all the expenses are paid, one of those expenses being the company’s taxes).
Whether someone calls it “double taxation” or not, it says nothing about whether it’s somehow right or wrong. I pay taxes every time I buy gasoline with money from my after-tax paycheck. Dollars circulate through all manner of transactions, some of which trigger a tax of some sort. So f**king what?
Maybe it’s a good idea lower corporate taxes, but it’s got nothing to do with double taxation. If there were no corporate taxes, dividends would be larger, since the tax expense would no longer reduce “final profits,” and would incur more taxes for the people receiving the dividends.
Sure, the rate on that marginal dividend received might be higher or lower depending on the total taxable income of the person receiving it. But, in the end, how does that trigger some relevant conceptualization of fairness (if that’s even what supposedly makes “double taxation” problematic)?
Dividends are distributed “profits,” right? Profits, for the purposes of dividends, are net of the issuing company’s expenses, including taxes. If you look at taxes as one of the costs to the company, dividends are the distribution of what I’ll call “final profits” (i.e. what’s left over when all the expenses are paid, one of those expenses being the company’s taxes).
Whether someone calls it “double taxation” or not, it says nothing about whether it’s somehow right or wrong. I pay taxes every time I buy gasoline with money from my after-tax paycheck. Dollars circulate through all manner of transactions, some of which trigger a tax of some sort. So f**king what?
Maybe it’s a good idea lower corporate taxes, but it’s got nothing to do with double taxation. If there were no corporate taxes, dividends would be larger, since the tax expense would no longer reduce “final profits,” and would incur more taxes for the people receiving the dividends.
Sure, the rate on that marginal dividend received might be higher or lower depending on the total taxable income of the person receiving it. But, in the end, how does that trigger some relevant conceptualization of fairness (if that’s even what supposedly makes “double taxation” problematic)?
Dividends are distributed “profits,” right? Profits, for the purposes of dividends, are net of the issuing company’s expenses, including taxes. If you look at taxes as one of the costs to the company, dividends are the distribution of what I’ll call “final profits” (i.e. what’s left over when all the expenses are paid, one of those expenses being the company’s taxes).
Whether someone calls it “double taxation” or not, it says nothing about whether it’s somehow right or wrong. I pay taxes every time I buy gasoline with money from my after-tax paycheck. Dollars circulate through all manner of transactions, some of which trigger a tax of some sort. So f**king what?
Maybe it’s a good idea lower corporate taxes, but it’s got nothing to do with double taxation. If there were no corporate taxes, dividends would be larger, since the tax expense would no longer reduce “final profits,” and would incur more taxes for the people receiving the dividends.
Sure, the rate on that marginal dividend received might be higher or lower depending on the total taxable income of the person receiving it. But, in the end, how does that trigger some relevant conceptualization of fairness (if that’s even what supposedly makes “double taxation” problematic)?
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
True but irrelevant. You don’t leave the money in a checking account. You invest in something. That something may be a conservative interest-bearing security, but it can easily earn more than the inflation rate.
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
Why? There are very few examples – almost none – of owners forced to sell farms or businesses to pay estate taxes, and there are ample ways to handle the problem if it comes up. Besides, businesses worth, say, $10 million only incur estate tax on the $5 million over the exemption. And if you own a business worth that much you are, let me say, quite wealthy. You are probably drawing a very generous salary, among other things. In addition, it’s likely that the business is already partly owned by children or other relatives, reducing the amount the tax is due on.
Also, it’s necessary to define what you mean by “closely held.” Most small businesses that reach that kind of value, which is not very many, have more than one owner. There may be outside investors, partners, whatever. Is a business owned say, by three equal shareholders who run it jointly “closely held?”
On “double taxation.” The point has been made often enough that lots of things are double-taxed. Most plainly workers are double-taxed on wages earned by having to pay FICA and Medicare taxes.
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
True but irrelevant. You don’t leave the money in a checking account. You invest in something. That something may be a conservative interest-bearing security, but it can easily earn more than the inflation rate.
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
Why? There are very few examples – almost none – of owners forced to sell farms or businesses to pay estate taxes, and there are ample ways to handle the problem if it comes up. Besides, businesses worth, say, $10 million only incur estate tax on the $5 million over the exemption. And if you own a business worth that much you are, let me say, quite wealthy. You are probably drawing a very generous salary, among other things. In addition, it’s likely that the business is already partly owned by children or other relatives, reducing the amount the tax is due on.
Also, it’s necessary to define what you mean by “closely held.” Most small businesses that reach that kind of value, which is not very many, have more than one owner. There may be outside investors, partners, whatever. Is a business owned say, by three equal shareholders who run it jointly “closely held?”
On “double taxation.” The point has been made often enough that lots of things are double-taxed. Most plainly workers are double-taxed on wages earned by having to pay FICA and Medicare taxes.
Nonsense. A dollar sitting in a checking account is worth less the next day because of inflation. To avoid double taxation, the money has to stay in the company. It’s pretty straightforward.
True but irrelevant. You don’t leave the money in a checking account. You invest in something. That something may be a conservative interest-bearing security, but it can easily earn more than the inflation rate.
No tax on non-liquid, income producing assets, e.g. a farm or family business that is closely held–the basically eliminates the need for Family Limited Partnerships to protect a family farm or business. A 5M exemption on other assets, and a graduated rate up to whatever the top earned income rate is over 10M.
Why? There are very few examples – almost none – of owners forced to sell farms or businesses to pay estate taxes, and there are ample ways to handle the problem if it comes up. Besides, businesses worth, say, $10 million only incur estate tax on the $5 million over the exemption. And if you own a business worth that much you are, let me say, quite wealthy. You are probably drawing a very generous salary, among other things. In addition, it’s likely that the business is already partly owned by children or other relatives, reducing the amount the tax is due on.
Also, it’s necessary to define what you mean by “closely held.” Most small businesses that reach that kind of value, which is not very many, have more than one owner. There may be outside investors, partners, whatever. Is a business owned say, by three equal shareholders who run it jointly “closely held?”
On “double taxation.” The point has been made often enough that lots of things are double-taxed. Most plainly workers are double-taxed on wages earned by having to pay FICA and Medicare taxes.
If I were to entertain the idea of double taxation, I would think of it in terms of how my income is taxed by the state and federal governments. The state takes some percentage of my income as taxes. The federal government then only taxes what’s left. If I weren’t allowed to deduct state taxes paid, that would be double taxation, since I’d be paying taxes on money I never got, because it was already taken by the state as tax.
In the dividend case, it would be like a company making $100 in taxable profits, paying $35 in corporate tax, paying out $65 as dividends to shareholders. But then assume the government taxes the shareholders on $100 rather than $65, since that was the pre-tax profit – even though the shareholders never saw the $35 already taken as tax from the company. That would be double taxation.
If I were to entertain the idea of double taxation, I would think of it in terms of how my income is taxed by the state and federal governments. The state takes some percentage of my income as taxes. The federal government then only taxes what’s left. If I weren’t allowed to deduct state taxes paid, that would be double taxation, since I’d be paying taxes on money I never got, because it was already taken by the state as tax.
In the dividend case, it would be like a company making $100 in taxable profits, paying $35 in corporate tax, paying out $65 as dividends to shareholders. But then assume the government taxes the shareholders on $100 rather than $65, since that was the pre-tax profit – even though the shareholders never saw the $35 already taken as tax from the company. That would be double taxation.
If I were to entertain the idea of double taxation, I would think of it in terms of how my income is taxed by the state and federal governments. The state takes some percentage of my income as taxes. The federal government then only taxes what’s left. If I weren’t allowed to deduct state taxes paid, that would be double taxation, since I’d be paying taxes on money I never got, because it was already taken by the state as tax.
In the dividend case, it would be like a company making $100 in taxable profits, paying $35 in corporate tax, paying out $65 as dividends to shareholders. But then assume the government taxes the shareholders on $100 rather than $65, since that was the pre-tax profit – even though the shareholders never saw the $35 already taken as tax from the company. That would be double taxation.
Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.
Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.
Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.
Latest Clinton Scandal…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/roy_spence_s_hillary_clinton_slogans_not_great_bob.html
…. she turned down the campaign slogan “We will build not the partisan ships.”
I’m seriously disappointed.
Latest Clinton Scandal…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/roy_spence_s_hillary_clinton_slogans_not_great_bob.html
…. she turned down the campaign slogan “We will build not the partisan ships.”
I’m seriously disappointed.
Latest Clinton Scandal…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/11/roy_spence_s_hillary_clinton_slogans_not_great_bob.html
…. she turned down the campaign slogan “We will build not the partisan ships.”
I’m seriously disappointed.
“Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.”
And then go down to the liquor store, and pay (federal! state! sales!) tax on your booze purchases before you can drown your sorrows.
Or pay those taxes on the gasoline and tires you need to give a Trump a “South African Necklace”. But in that case, it’s 100% worth it.
“Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.”
And then go down to the liquor store, and pay (federal! state! sales!) tax on your booze purchases before you can drown your sorrows.
Or pay those taxes on the gasoline and tires you need to give a Trump a “South African Necklace”. But in that case, it’s 100% worth it.
“Don’t forget that, after paying those FICA taxes, you are then going to get taxed on the Social Security income that you eventually get.”
And then go down to the liquor store, and pay (federal! state! sales!) tax on your booze purchases before you can drown your sorrows.
Or pay those taxes on the gasoline and tires you need to give a Trump a “South African Necklace”. But in that case, it’s 100% worth it.
a “Trumper” not a “Trump”. But there are plenty that still qualify as worthy.
a “Trumper” not a “Trump”. But there are plenty that still qualify as worthy.
a “Trumper” not a “Trump”. But there are plenty that still qualify as worthy.
In the movie Body Heat, the detective says this
When it’s hot, people try to kill each other. I know some people who’ll be dead if we don’t get a break soon. We got more of everything bad since the wave started. It’s that crisis atmosphere.
People dress different, feel different, they sweat more…wake up cranky and never recover. Everything is just a little askew. Pretty soon people think the old rules are not in effect…start to break them, figuring nobody’ll care because it’s emergency time.
A friendly note from the front page.
I realize that this presidential election has been able to go well past rock bottom, and I make a similar observation as the detective in Body Heat. We are definitely in an time when the old rules don’t apply. But let’s try and pull back a bit from the precipice. The election is not going to be decided here, so I hope we might still be intact after it is all over. Thx.
In the movie Body Heat, the detective says this
When it’s hot, people try to kill each other. I know some people who’ll be dead if we don’t get a break soon. We got more of everything bad since the wave started. It’s that crisis atmosphere.
People dress different, feel different, they sweat more…wake up cranky and never recover. Everything is just a little askew. Pretty soon people think the old rules are not in effect…start to break them, figuring nobody’ll care because it’s emergency time.
A friendly note from the front page.
I realize that this presidential election has been able to go well past rock bottom, and I make a similar observation as the detective in Body Heat. We are definitely in an time when the old rules don’t apply. But let’s try and pull back a bit from the precipice. The election is not going to be decided here, so I hope we might still be intact after it is all over. Thx.
In the movie Body Heat, the detective says this
When it’s hot, people try to kill each other. I know some people who’ll be dead if we don’t get a break soon. We got more of everything bad since the wave started. It’s that crisis atmosphere.
People dress different, feel different, they sweat more…wake up cranky and never recover. Everything is just a little askew. Pretty soon people think the old rules are not in effect…start to break them, figuring nobody’ll care because it’s emergency time.
A friendly note from the front page.
I realize that this presidential election has been able to go well past rock bottom, and I make a similar observation as the detective in Body Heat. We are definitely in an time when the old rules don’t apply. But let’s try and pull back a bit from the precipice. The election is not going to be decided here, so I hope we might still be intact after it is all over. Thx.
hsh, right or wrong it’s not the same conceptually. We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income. Then, with no other transaction than splitting up our money, it gets taxed again.
That’s not same as buying something, etc.
hsh, right or wrong it’s not the same conceptually. We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income. Then, with no other transaction than splitting up our money, it gets taxed again.
That’s not same as buying something, etc.
hsh, right or wrong it’s not the same conceptually. We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income. Then, with no other transaction than splitting up our money, it gets taxed again.
That’s not same as buying something, etc.
We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income.
No. The corporation, a separate legal entity, a wholly separate legal person not of any one or any collection of said owners paid that initial tax.
As Baker pointed out, the corporate tax is essentially a fee paid to the government to have limited liability. That attribute, a total creation of the government, has a great deal of value to the individual investor.
We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income.
No. The corporation, a separate legal entity, a wholly separate legal person not of any one or any collection of said owners paid that initial tax.
As Baker pointed out, the corporate tax is essentially a fee paid to the government to have limited liability. That attribute, a total creation of the government, has a great deal of value to the individual investor.
We the owners collectively paid the taxes on the income.
No. The corporation, a separate legal entity, a wholly separate legal person not of any one or any collection of said owners paid that initial tax.
As Baker pointed out, the corporate tax is essentially a fee paid to the government to have limited liability. That attribute, a total creation of the government, has a great deal of value to the individual investor.
bobbyp, as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation. We are one. I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance. They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
bobbyp, as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation. We are one. I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance. They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
bobbyp, as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation. We are one. I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance. They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
So you’d be okay with eliminating corporate taxes and taxing all dividends at, say, 45% (or whatever would make the whole thing revenue neutral)? It’s not double taxation, then, right?
So you’d be okay with eliminating corporate taxes and taxing all dividends at, say, 45% (or whatever would make the whole thing revenue neutral)? It’s not double taxation, then, right?
So you’d be okay with eliminating corporate taxes and taxing all dividends at, say, 45% (or whatever would make the whole thing revenue neutral)? It’s not double taxation, then, right?
all Freedom™-worshiping investors are of course free to invest their money in Free™ markets like those they can find in the alleys behind the bowling alleys in the mid-sized city of their choosing. Brass-knuckle Bob’s Hush-Hush Short Term Loans will be happy to invest your capital in its own proprietary low-risk, high-yield market. and you get what you and keep your damn mouth shut if you know what’s good for ya. that’s where all the smart money goes, far far away from the greedy double-taxi-grabbing hands of the leering, lurching, make-you-do-what-it-wants state.
all Freedom™-worshiping investors are of course free to invest their money in Free™ markets like those they can find in the alleys behind the bowling alleys in the mid-sized city of their choosing. Brass-knuckle Bob’s Hush-Hush Short Term Loans will be happy to invest your capital in its own proprietary low-risk, high-yield market. and you get what you and keep your damn mouth shut if you know what’s good for ya. that’s where all the smart money goes, far far away from the greedy double-taxi-grabbing hands of the leering, lurching, make-you-do-what-it-wants state.
all Freedom™-worshiping investors are of course free to invest their money in Free™ markets like those they can find in the alleys behind the bowling alleys in the mid-sized city of their choosing. Brass-knuckle Bob’s Hush-Hush Short Term Loans will be happy to invest your capital in its own proprietary low-risk, high-yield market. and you get what you and keep your damn mouth shut if you know what’s good for ya. that’s where all the smart money goes, far far away from the greedy double-taxi-grabbing hands of the leering, lurching, make-you-do-what-it-wants state.
The corporation, a separate legal entity
Seriously, people need to repeat this to themselves 1,000 times a day.
Corporations are not only a separate legal entity from the people who hold a stake in them, *that is the reason that they exist*.
The reasons corporations exist, at all, is to provide a legal identity *separate from the people who hold an equity stake in them*.
I am fine with all of that. What I am not fine with is people thinking that they and the corps they have a piece of are one and the same.
You can pool your surplus capital into a great big pile and give it an identity separate from you and all of your co-investors, in return for which you are exempt from personal responsibility for the liabilities of the corporation.
Or, you can legally maintain that the money is yours, personally, in which case you expose yourself to whatever liabilities flow from its use.
You can’t have both.
I don’t care if corps pay income tax. I don’t care if people pay income tax. I don’t care if we decide that we’re going to charge crazy fees for extracting oil and other mineral resources from publicly owned land. I don’t care if we double the price of everything made in China at the border.
I don’t care if we have bake sales.
We have bills, we need to pay them. Whatever is the most expeditious way to do that is fine with me.
If reducing the corporate tax burden and shifting that to – for example – people who derive their income from investments is going to be the most expeditious way to pay the bills, sign me up.
My personal household income stream is such that that arrangement will probably cost me some money. I can live with that, within reasonable boundaries.
Just f***ing pay the bills and move on.
The canonical reason for taxing people with a lot of money more than people who don’t have a lot of money is not to punish them and make them cry and move to Ireland or Switzerland.
It’s because *the marginal utility of a wealthy person’s last dollar is less than the marginal utility of a poor person’s last dollar*.
That term had not yet been invented (I think) when Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth Of Nations”, but the concept is expressed there quite concisely.
Take 25% of a poor man’s income and he doesn’t eat.
Take 25% of a rich man’s income and he only buys one Lamborghini.
That’s why we tax wealthy people at a higher rate than poor people. On those occasions when we actually do so, which are not universal.
The corporation, a separate legal entity
Seriously, people need to repeat this to themselves 1,000 times a day.
Corporations are not only a separate legal entity from the people who hold a stake in them, *that is the reason that they exist*.
The reasons corporations exist, at all, is to provide a legal identity *separate from the people who hold an equity stake in them*.
I am fine with all of that. What I am not fine with is people thinking that they and the corps they have a piece of are one and the same.
You can pool your surplus capital into a great big pile and give it an identity separate from you and all of your co-investors, in return for which you are exempt from personal responsibility for the liabilities of the corporation.
Or, you can legally maintain that the money is yours, personally, in which case you expose yourself to whatever liabilities flow from its use.
You can’t have both.
I don’t care if corps pay income tax. I don’t care if people pay income tax. I don’t care if we decide that we’re going to charge crazy fees for extracting oil and other mineral resources from publicly owned land. I don’t care if we double the price of everything made in China at the border.
I don’t care if we have bake sales.
We have bills, we need to pay them. Whatever is the most expeditious way to do that is fine with me.
If reducing the corporate tax burden and shifting that to – for example – people who derive their income from investments is going to be the most expeditious way to pay the bills, sign me up.
My personal household income stream is such that that arrangement will probably cost me some money. I can live with that, within reasonable boundaries.
Just f***ing pay the bills and move on.
The canonical reason for taxing people with a lot of money more than people who don’t have a lot of money is not to punish them and make them cry and move to Ireland or Switzerland.
It’s because *the marginal utility of a wealthy person’s last dollar is less than the marginal utility of a poor person’s last dollar*.
That term had not yet been invented (I think) when Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth Of Nations”, but the concept is expressed there quite concisely.
Take 25% of a poor man’s income and he doesn’t eat.
Take 25% of a rich man’s income and he only buys one Lamborghini.
That’s why we tax wealthy people at a higher rate than poor people. On those occasions when we actually do so, which are not universal.
The corporation, a separate legal entity
Seriously, people need to repeat this to themselves 1,000 times a day.
Corporations are not only a separate legal entity from the people who hold a stake in them, *that is the reason that they exist*.
The reasons corporations exist, at all, is to provide a legal identity *separate from the people who hold an equity stake in them*.
I am fine with all of that. What I am not fine with is people thinking that they and the corps they have a piece of are one and the same.
You can pool your surplus capital into a great big pile and give it an identity separate from you and all of your co-investors, in return for which you are exempt from personal responsibility for the liabilities of the corporation.
Or, you can legally maintain that the money is yours, personally, in which case you expose yourself to whatever liabilities flow from its use.
You can’t have both.
I don’t care if corps pay income tax. I don’t care if people pay income tax. I don’t care if we decide that we’re going to charge crazy fees for extracting oil and other mineral resources from publicly owned land. I don’t care if we double the price of everything made in China at the border.
I don’t care if we have bake sales.
We have bills, we need to pay them. Whatever is the most expeditious way to do that is fine with me.
If reducing the corporate tax burden and shifting that to – for example – people who derive their income from investments is going to be the most expeditious way to pay the bills, sign me up.
My personal household income stream is such that that arrangement will probably cost me some money. I can live with that, within reasonable boundaries.
Just f***ing pay the bills and move on.
The canonical reason for taxing people with a lot of money more than people who don’t have a lot of money is not to punish them and make them cry and move to Ireland or Switzerland.
It’s because *the marginal utility of a wealthy person’s last dollar is less than the marginal utility of a poor person’s last dollar*.
That term had not yet been invented (I think) when Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth Of Nations”, but the concept is expressed there quite concisely.
Take 25% of a poor man’s income and he doesn’t eat.
Take 25% of a rich man’s income and he only buys one Lamborghini.
That’s why we tax wealthy people at a higher rate than poor people. On those occasions when we actually do so, which are not universal.
I wanna be Leon: The Professional
I’m thinking you maybe just have a little thing for Natalie Portman.
If so, you aren’t alone.
🙂
I wanna be Leon: The Professional
I’m thinking you maybe just have a little thing for Natalie Portman.
If so, you aren’t alone.
🙂
I wanna be Leon: The Professional
I’m thinking you maybe just have a little thing for Natalie Portman.
If so, you aren’t alone.
🙂
Well, that movie was something of a love story, in the very legitimate, touching way it depicted of two human beings in lonely, desperate straits thrown together and coming to depend upon each other.
Not to be cringe-worthy, but I read somewhere that one scene ended up on the cutting room floor because it was a bit too suggestive.
Nevertheless, tremendously moving.
I also loved the way Bjork’s “Venus As A Boy” was used in the film.
And, of course, Gary Oldman was one hell of a villain, inexorably advancing on his victims like Alien or the liquid metal man in Terminator II, or Roger Stone and David Bossie.
King Richard III comes to mind.
Over the top acting but right on the money.
Well, that movie was something of a love story, in the very legitimate, touching way it depicted of two human beings in lonely, desperate straits thrown together and coming to depend upon each other.
Not to be cringe-worthy, but I read somewhere that one scene ended up on the cutting room floor because it was a bit too suggestive.
Nevertheless, tremendously moving.
I also loved the way Bjork’s “Venus As A Boy” was used in the film.
And, of course, Gary Oldman was one hell of a villain, inexorably advancing on his victims like Alien or the liquid metal man in Terminator II, or Roger Stone and David Bossie.
King Richard III comes to mind.
Over the top acting but right on the money.
Well, that movie was something of a love story, in the very legitimate, touching way it depicted of two human beings in lonely, desperate straits thrown together and coming to depend upon each other.
Not to be cringe-worthy, but I read somewhere that one scene ended up on the cutting room floor because it was a bit too suggestive.
Nevertheless, tremendously moving.
I also loved the way Bjork’s “Venus As A Boy” was used in the film.
And, of course, Gary Oldman was one hell of a villain, inexorably advancing on his victims like Alien or the liquid metal man in Terminator II, or Roger Stone and David Bossie.
King Richard III comes to mind.
Over the top acting but right on the money.
No, russell they don’t. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The corporation is owned by the shareholders. The CEO has a fiduciary obligation to them. The law can protect the individuals private wealth, at any level, and still place their ownership share of the corporation at risk with all the other owners. I can own a home and a business. Incorporating protects the home but not the business. They can take every bit of the business I own. And they have more than once.
The divvying up of the profits is between us owners of the corporation when the Board, exercising its fiduciary responsibility to me, decides that’s the best use of the funds for the owners, and we vote to agree. It’s still giving me my money. If they liquidated the whole company they would just be giving me my share in cash. I already bought my share.
Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected.]
No, russell they don’t. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The corporation is owned by the shareholders. The CEO has a fiduciary obligation to them. The law can protect the individuals private wealth, at any level, and still place their ownership share of the corporation at risk with all the other owners. I can own a home and a business. Incorporating protects the home but not the business. They can take every bit of the business I own. And they have more than once.
The divvying up of the profits is between us owners of the corporation when the Board, exercising its fiduciary responsibility to me, decides that’s the best use of the funds for the owners, and we vote to agree. It’s still giving me my money. If they liquidated the whole company they would just be giving me my share in cash. I already bought my share.
Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected.]
No, russell they don’t. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. The corporation is owned by the shareholders. The CEO has a fiduciary obligation to them. The law can protect the individuals private wealth, at any level, and still place their ownership share of the corporation at risk with all the other owners. I can own a home and a business. Incorporating protects the home but not the business. They can take every bit of the business I own. And they have more than once.
The divvying up of the profits is between us owners of the corporation when the Board, exercising its fiduciary responsibility to me, decides that’s the best use of the funds for the owners, and we vote to agree. It’s still giving me my money. If they liquidated the whole company they would just be giving me my share in cash. I already bought my share.
Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected.]
And, with apologies to lj for two in a row, hsh, if they double the rate it’s costing me the same, but I can object to it more directly because there isn’t the sleight of hand pretending I am two different taxpayers to confuse the issue.
And, with apologies to lj for two in a row, hsh, if they double the rate it’s costing me the same, but I can object to it more directly because there isn’t the sleight of hand pretending I am two different taxpayers to confuse the issue.
And, with apologies to lj for two in a row, hsh, if they double the rate it’s costing me the same, but I can object to it more directly because there isn’t the sleight of hand pretending I am two different taxpayers to confuse the issue.
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
“Nevertheless, tremendously moving.”
i agree.
“Nevertheless, tremendously moving.”
i agree.
“Nevertheless, tremendously moving.”
i agree.
Of course not russell, but the utility of getting people to accept the risk of losing their money to capitalize the corporation is a common good, and the reason for corporations. The protection is offered as an enticement to fund growing the economy. It was not created for simply my benefit, it was created to make participating mutually beneficial.
Of course not russell, but the utility of getting people to accept the risk of losing their money to capitalize the corporation is a common good, and the reason for corporations. The protection is offered as an enticement to fund growing the economy. It was not created for simply my benefit, it was created to make participating mutually beneficial.
Of course not russell, but the utility of getting people to accept the risk of losing their money to capitalize the corporation is a common good, and the reason for corporations. The protection is offered as an enticement to fund growing the economy. It was not created for simply my benefit, it was created to make participating mutually beneficial.
“correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.”
No what is at risk is the value of my share of the corporation. Over time that can become a significant part of one’s net worth. On day one, my investment and the value of my share of the business are likely to not be equal.
“correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.”
No what is at risk is the value of my share of the corporation. Over time that can become a significant part of one’s net worth. On day one, my investment and the value of my share of the business are likely to not be equal.
“correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.”
No what is at risk is the value of my share of the corporation. Over time that can become a significant part of one’s net worth. On day one, my investment and the value of my share of the business are likely to not be equal.
I can see how an investment in a corporation could become a significant portion of your net worth. (I’ve got hopes along those lines myself.) But let’s be clear. What that means is that your net worth has grown. A lot.
You risk what you invested, plus the amount of growth. Even if you lose all that growth amount, you are no worse off than if you had never gotten any growth. Certainly it hurts more to think you gained something and then discover otherwise. But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
I can see how an investment in a corporation could become a significant portion of your net worth. (I’ve got hopes along those lines myself.) But let’s be clear. What that means is that your net worth has grown. A lot.
You risk what you invested, plus the amount of growth. Even if you lose all that growth amount, you are no worse off than if you had never gotten any growth. Certainly it hurts more to think you gained something and then discover otherwise. But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
I can see how an investment in a corporation could become a significant portion of your net worth. (I’ve got hopes along those lines myself.) But let’s be clear. What that means is that your net worth has grown. A lot.
You risk what you invested, plus the amount of growth. Even if you lose all that growth amount, you are no worse off than if you had never gotten any growth. Certainly it hurts more to think you gained something and then discover otherwise. But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
You’ve invested in the corporation to grow the size of your investment. Your investment, once you pony up the cash, is the value of your share in the corporation. So yes, what is at risk is your investment, whatever size it may have grown to.
Had you forgone the protection of the corporate fiction, you could possibly have increased your wealth to the same degree that the corporation increased the value of your share. However, you would have done so by risking more than just the money comprising your investment. They can take your entire share of the company, but that is just the investment you chose to risk, grown, shrank, or stagnated from your initial gamble to its current size.
If you want us to treat piles of cash as distinct people legally separate from the cash’s owner(s), you’re going to have to admit that you are separate from that pile of cash…
You’ve invested in the corporation to grow the size of your investment. Your investment, once you pony up the cash, is the value of your share in the corporation. So yes, what is at risk is your investment, whatever size it may have grown to.
Had you forgone the protection of the corporate fiction, you could possibly have increased your wealth to the same degree that the corporation increased the value of your share. However, you would have done so by risking more than just the money comprising your investment. They can take your entire share of the company, but that is just the investment you chose to risk, grown, shrank, or stagnated from your initial gamble to its current size.
If you want us to treat piles of cash as distinct people legally separate from the cash’s owner(s), you’re going to have to admit that you are separate from that pile of cash…
You’ve invested in the corporation to grow the size of your investment. Your investment, once you pony up the cash, is the value of your share in the corporation. So yes, what is at risk is your investment, whatever size it may have grown to.
Had you forgone the protection of the corporate fiction, you could possibly have increased your wealth to the same degree that the corporation increased the value of your share. However, you would have done so by risking more than just the money comprising your investment. They can take your entire share of the company, but that is just the investment you chose to risk, grown, shrank, or stagnated from your initial gamble to its current size.
If you want us to treat piles of cash as distinct people legally separate from the cash’s owner(s), you’re going to have to admit that you are separate from that pile of cash…
as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation.
and?
We are one.
Again. No. A sole proprietorship is “one”. A corporation is a separate legal entity that is recognized, for some legal purposes, as a person TOTALLY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM YOU.
I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance.
Again no. The corporate entity paid those. As an equity holder, they didn’t send you an itemized bill for your share, right? So how can you make this claim?
They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
So you take a business risk. Risks have costs. What do you want? A guaranteed profit? You want to run a business without insurance? That would be irresponsible. The effective rate of corporate taxation is simply a cost of doing business here in the USA. If a majority of shareholders decide, they are free to, liquidate it, sell it, or take the business elsewhere. If it is profitable, somebody else will fill that niche. That’s what market theory would posit.
The “double taxation” is, as I have pointed out, simply a dodge, much like calling inheritance taxes the “death tax”. It is a misnomer that has one purpose, and one purpose only, the political agenda of lowering taxes for the investor class.
When I see the bleaters acknowledge that they will trade the corporate tax for a higher tax on income (however defined), then I shall take such claims seriously. Otherwise, why should I care?
What’s in it for me? Common Citizen?
as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation.
and?
We are one.
Again. No. A sole proprietorship is “one”. A corporation is a separate legal entity that is recognized, for some legal purposes, as a person TOTALLY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM YOU.
I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance.
Again no. The corporate entity paid those. As an equity holder, they didn’t send you an itemized bill for your share, right? So how can you make this claim?
They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
So you take a business risk. Risks have costs. What do you want? A guaranteed profit? You want to run a business without insurance? That would be irresponsible. The effective rate of corporate taxation is simply a cost of doing business here in the USA. If a majority of shareholders decide, they are free to, liquidate it, sell it, or take the business elsewhere. If it is profitable, somebody else will fill that niche. That’s what market theory would posit.
The “double taxation” is, as I have pointed out, simply a dodge, much like calling inheritance taxes the “death tax”. It is a misnomer that has one purpose, and one purpose only, the political agenda of lowering taxes for the investor class.
When I see the bleaters acknowledge that they will trade the corporate tax for a higher tax on income (however defined), then I shall take such claims seriously. Otherwise, why should I care?
What’s in it for me? Common Citizen?
as in investor I have an equity interest as a part of that corporation.
and?
We are one.
Again. No. A sole proprietorship is “one”. A corporation is a separate legal entity that is recognized, for some legal purposes, as a person TOTALLY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM YOU.
I paid for my protection with the first tax, plus corporate fees to do business in every state, plus required insurance.
Again no. The corporate entity paid those. As an equity holder, they didn’t send you an itemized bill for your share, right? So how can you make this claim?
They got their pint of blood before I ever made a dime.
So you take a business risk. Risks have costs. What do you want? A guaranteed profit? You want to run a business without insurance? That would be irresponsible. The effective rate of corporate taxation is simply a cost of doing business here in the USA. If a majority of shareholders decide, they are free to, liquidate it, sell it, or take the business elsewhere. If it is profitable, somebody else will fill that niche. That’s what market theory would posit.
The “double taxation” is, as I have pointed out, simply a dodge, much like calling inheritance taxes the “death tax”. It is a misnomer that has one purpose, and one purpose only, the political agenda of lowering taxes for the investor class.
When I see the bleaters acknowledge that they will trade the corporate tax for a higher tax on income (however defined), then I shall take such claims seriously. Otherwise, why should I care?
What’s in it for me? Common Citizen?
But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
Although if we are discussing McKinney, that would not apply, because he does not believe in the concept of present value. 🙂
But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
Although if we are discussing McKinney, that would not apply, because he does not believe in the concept of present value. 🙂
But the real financial loss? Just what you invested.
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
Although if we are discussing McKinney, that would not apply, because he does not believe in the concept of present value. 🙂
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
When Mexico sends their electrons, they not sending us their best. They’re sending electrons that have a lot of problems. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapelectrons.
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
When Mexico sends their electrons, they not sending us their best. They’re sending electrons that have a lot of problems. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapelectrons.
But nobody sees all the electrons that represent the capital/money moving. So, nothing to see here. Just move along.
When Mexico sends their electrons, they not sending us their best. They’re sending electrons that have a lot of problems. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapelectrons.
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
The very fact that so many people are willing to undergo double taxation demonstrates that the corporate liability shield is worth it to them.
They’re already getting their money’s worth or they wouldn’t do it. So we get the societal benefits (ie corporate risk-taking) while also recouping some of the fruits of those benefits back to the society that provided them.
Win-win. Except some folks aren’t happy winning only most of the kitty.
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
The very fact that so many people are willing to undergo double taxation demonstrates that the corporate liability shield is worth it to them.
They’re already getting their money’s worth or they wouldn’t do it. So we get the societal benefits (ie corporate risk-taking) while also recouping some of the fruits of those benefits back to the society that provided them.
Win-win. Except some folks aren’t happy winning only most of the kitty.
“Just because they can’t reach beyond the corporation doesn’t mean that I am completely protected”
correct. what is at risk is what you have invested in the corp.
everything else is protected.
wanna give that up?
The very fact that so many people are willing to undergo double taxation demonstrates that the corporate liability shield is worth it to them.
They’re already getting their money’s worth or they wouldn’t do it. So we get the societal benefits (ie corporate risk-taking) while also recouping some of the fruits of those benefits back to the society that provided them.
Win-win. Except some folks aren’t happy winning only most of the kitty.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-divides-congress-20161011-snap-story.html
To quote Nelson from the Simpsons “Ha ha!”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-divides-congress-20161011-snap-story.html
To quote Nelson from the Simpsons “Ha ha!”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-divides-congress-20161011-snap-story.html
To quote Nelson from the Simpsons “Ha ha!”
“I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately.”
I suspect you’re not starting from the same frame as a liberal- if your assumption is that your (ie conservative) Constitutional interpretations are correct, then someone like Clinton calling for a court that supports different interpretations may sound like they’re calling for divorcing decisions from the constitution. What you understand the constitution to mean, anyway.
Eg liberals generally think Shelby County was a travesty of a decision with no support from the text of the constitution and in opposition to its text and meaning.
“I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately.”
I suspect you’re not starting from the same frame as a liberal- if your assumption is that your (ie conservative) Constitutional interpretations are correct, then someone like Clinton calling for a court that supports different interpretations may sound like they’re calling for divorcing decisions from the constitution. What you understand the constitution to mean, anyway.
Eg liberals generally think Shelby County was a travesty of a decision with no support from the text of the constitution and in opposition to its text and meaning.
“I think I paraphrased all that pretty accurately.”
I suspect you’re not starting from the same frame as a liberal- if your assumption is that your (ie conservative) Constitutional interpretations are correct, then someone like Clinton calling for a court that supports different interpretations may sound like they’re calling for divorcing decisions from the constitution. What you understand the constitution to mean, anyway.
Eg liberals generally think Shelby County was a travesty of a decision with no support from the text of the constitution and in opposition to its text and meaning.
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
I can only see that as an invitation to a race to the bottom. The Caymans or Belize would likely be happy with 1% of Apple’s revenue as tax, how are we going to compete with that? Other than not allowing them to book US-earned profits as profits in Belize.
Bypassing exactly how we do that, why object to doing it? Is there a moral reason for arguing that corps should be able to evade US taxes?
Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
Issue with the phrasing here. They’re *doing business* in the US regardless, that’s where their customers are. What they are doing are legal accounting gimmicks to move that profit offshore. I have no problem if low tax rates in Belize lure businesses there to do business. I have a problem if business done here- using our courts, our police, our roads etc- doesnt pay their share for doing so.
Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits
I think of dog whistles as implying something that one didn’t want to talk about openly eg Trump recently telling his voters to go to ‘problem areas’ on election day after voting to prevent fraud. We’re all know he means ‘where minorities are voting’ and that since a crowd of random Trump voters outside a polling place don’t have any chance of actually spotting fraud even if it did occur, so ‘watching’ means ‘intimidating’.
But Clinton, and lefties in general, are perfectly willing to talk about their issues with eg banks. What are they supposed to be saying that’s hidden behind ‘we need to go back to Glass-Steagall’?
(I mean, you could read that as “The workers must own the means of production!” But why not read it literally?)
I’m open to the idea that there are liberal dog whistles, but I think you need to find a case where the thing isn’t being openly discussed like bank regulations. It likely has to be something that’s really unspeakable imo, otherwise why dog whistle it?
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt.
I admit this is a pair of sentiments I see so often but don’t understand-
1)if debt is the big problem, then raising more money surely can’t be a bad thing
2) the US had grown fine in the past with higher tax rates than Clinton proposes
3)I see zero support for the idea that taxes are a huge drag on growth today. Economies that tried to cut their way out of the current slump have done demonstrably worse than the US.
4) I’m curious what you think is causing the current slowdown, that you think cutting taxes is an important part of the solution. And cutting services even more, so that debt is paid off. That sounds to me like a recipe for cratering the economy. Let’s do Greece to ourselves to save our economy!
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
I can only see that as an invitation to a race to the bottom. The Caymans or Belize would likely be happy with 1% of Apple’s revenue as tax, how are we going to compete with that? Other than not allowing them to book US-earned profits as profits in Belize.
Bypassing exactly how we do that, why object to doing it? Is there a moral reason for arguing that corps should be able to evade US taxes?
Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
Issue with the phrasing here. They’re *doing business* in the US regardless, that’s where their customers are. What they are doing are legal accounting gimmicks to move that profit offshore. I have no problem if low tax rates in Belize lure businesses there to do business. I have a problem if business done here- using our courts, our police, our roads etc- doesnt pay their share for doing so.
Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits
I think of dog whistles as implying something that one didn’t want to talk about openly eg Trump recently telling his voters to go to ‘problem areas’ on election day after voting to prevent fraud. We’re all know he means ‘where minorities are voting’ and that since a crowd of random Trump voters outside a polling place don’t have any chance of actually spotting fraud even if it did occur, so ‘watching’ means ‘intimidating’.
But Clinton, and lefties in general, are perfectly willing to talk about their issues with eg banks. What are they supposed to be saying that’s hidden behind ‘we need to go back to Glass-Steagall’?
(I mean, you could read that as “The workers must own the means of production!” But why not read it literally?)
I’m open to the idea that there are liberal dog whistles, but I think you need to find a case where the thing isn’t being openly discussed like bank regulations. It likely has to be something that’s really unspeakable imo, otherwise why dog whistle it?
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt.
I admit this is a pair of sentiments I see so often but don’t understand-
1)if debt is the big problem, then raising more money surely can’t be a bad thing
2) the US had grown fine in the past with higher tax rates than Clinton proposes
3)I see zero support for the idea that taxes are a huge drag on growth today. Economies that tried to cut their way out of the current slump have done demonstrably worse than the US.
4) I’m curious what you think is causing the current slowdown, that you think cutting taxes is an important part of the solution. And cutting services even more, so that debt is paid off. That sounds to me like a recipe for cratering the economy. Let’s do Greece to ourselves to save our economy!
Third, if she wants US corporations not to send their money and their jobs offshore, give them a reason to stay here: lower their taxes.
I can only see that as an invitation to a race to the bottom. The Caymans or Belize would likely be happy with 1% of Apple’s revenue as tax, how are we going to compete with that? Other than not allowing them to book US-earned profits as profits in Belize.
Bypassing exactly how we do that, why object to doing it? Is there a moral reason for arguing that corps should be able to evade US taxes?
Why would a company do business in a country that taxes it at 35% when it can go to a country that has a 10 or 15% bracket?
Issue with the phrasing here. They’re *doing business* in the US regardless, that’s where their customers are. What they are doing are legal accounting gimmicks to move that profit offshore. I have no problem if low tax rates in Belize lure businesses there to do business. I have a problem if business done here- using our courts, our police, our roads etc- doesnt pay their share for doing so.
Lefties here like to talk about right wing dog whistles. Here are some from the other side: corporations, banks, millionaires, profits
I think of dog whistles as implying something that one didn’t want to talk about openly eg Trump recently telling his voters to go to ‘problem areas’ on election day after voting to prevent fraud. We’re all know he means ‘where minorities are voting’ and that since a crowd of random Trump voters outside a polling place don’t have any chance of actually spotting fraud even if it did occur, so ‘watching’ means ‘intimidating’.
But Clinton, and lefties in general, are perfectly willing to talk about their issues with eg banks. What are they supposed to be saying that’s hidden behind ‘we need to go back to Glass-Steagall’?
(I mean, you could read that as “The workers must own the means of production!” But why not read it literally?)
I’m open to the idea that there are liberal dog whistles, but I think you need to find a case where the thing isn’t being openly discussed like bank regulations. It likely has to be something that’s really unspeakable imo, otherwise why dog whistle it?
Raising taxes and piling regulation on regulation isn’t going to cause the economy to grow. Just the opposite. We have huge debt.
I admit this is a pair of sentiments I see so often but don’t understand-
1)if debt is the big problem, then raising more money surely can’t be a bad thing
2) the US had grown fine in the past with higher tax rates than Clinton proposes
3)I see zero support for the idea that taxes are a huge drag on growth today. Economies that tried to cut their way out of the current slump have done demonstrably worse than the US.
4) I’m curious what you think is causing the current slowdown, that you think cutting taxes is an important part of the solution. And cutting services even more, so that debt is paid off. That sounds to me like a recipe for cratering the economy. Let’s do Greece to ourselves to save our economy!
Isn’t it more pleasant to be a millionaire among penniless paupers than to be a billionaire where every lowborn can afford a car and fashionable clothing? What use are the surplus zeros on the account statements when the distinctions of wealth become more or less invisible?
Isn’t it more pleasant to be a millionaire among penniless paupers than to be a billionaire where every lowborn can afford a car and fashionable clothing? What use are the surplus zeros on the account statements when the distinctions of wealth become more or less invisible?
Isn’t it more pleasant to be a millionaire among penniless paupers than to be a billionaire where every lowborn can afford a car and fashionable clothing? What use are the surplus zeros on the account statements when the distinctions of wealth become more or less invisible?
This must be a new record in either illogic or expert doublethink:
This must be a new record in either illogic or expert doublethink:
This must be a new record in either illogic or expert doublethink:
LePage might be the dumbest politician in the US. even Trump looks smart by comparison.
LePage might be the dumbest politician in the US. even Trump looks smart by comparison.
LePage might be the dumbest politician in the US. even Trump looks smart by comparison.
russell, have you tried the ‘swipe’ or ‘gesture’ keyboard on your tablet? It takes a little getting used to, but now it’s the only way of entering text on a screen, for me.
russell, have you tried the ‘swipe’ or ‘gesture’ keyboard on your tablet? It takes a little getting used to, but now it’s the only way of entering text on a screen, for me.
russell, have you tried the ‘swipe’ or ‘gesture’ keyboard on your tablet? It takes a little getting used to, but now it’s the only way of entering text on a screen, for me.
Thet’s some doubleplusgood doublethink.
—
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
This is an odd rabbit path to consider wandering, even if it’s conventional. I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent. Buying a hot tub costs me what I spent on it, not what I spent on it plus what I could have earned on that sum had I invested it in a high-performing stock or winning scratch-off lottery tickets. It’s somewhat telling that we rhetorically privilege investment over other uses of money, even though the dollar-to-dollar opportunity cost is the same whether we’re buying a latte or tying up cash in a stock portfolio.
Thet’s some doubleplusgood doublethink.
—
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
This is an odd rabbit path to consider wandering, even if it’s conventional. I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent. Buying a hot tub costs me what I spent on it, not what I spent on it plus what I could have earned on that sum had I invested it in a high-performing stock or winning scratch-off lottery tickets. It’s somewhat telling that we rhetorically privilege investment over other uses of money, even though the dollar-to-dollar opportunity cost is the same whether we’re buying a latte or tying up cash in a stock portfolio.
Thet’s some doubleplusgood doublethink.
—
Well, almost? Isn’t there the opportunity cost if the initial investment had been made elsewhere?
This is an odd rabbit path to consider wandering, even if it’s conventional. I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent. Buying a hot tub costs me what I spent on it, not what I spent on it plus what I could have earned on that sum had I invested it in a high-performing stock or winning scratch-off lottery tickets. It’s somewhat telling that we rhetorically privilege investment over other uses of money, even though the dollar-to-dollar opportunity cost is the same whether we’re buying a latte or tying up cash in a stock portfolio.
“I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent”
No, you don’t. But if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
“I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent”
No, you don’t. But if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
“I do not talk about the “real” cost of a house being the price paid plus the opportunity cost of the price difference between mortgage payments and my current rent”
No, you don’t. But if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
I know some among our number refuse to look at Mother Jones, and it’s not a regular for me either, but someone just emailed me a clip of Samantha Bee talking about the Republicans who have condemned Trump in the wake of the tape, and I think it is magnificent:
I know some among our number refuse to look at Mother Jones, and it’s not a regular for me either, but someone just emailed me a clip of Samantha Bee talking about the Republicans who have condemned Trump in the wake of the tape, and I think it is magnificent:
I know some among our number refuse to look at Mother Jones, and it’s not a regular for me either, but someone just emailed me a clip of Samantha Bee talking about the Republicans who have condemned Trump in the wake of the tape, and I think it is magnificent:
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
Two points, the first of which will probably make you sigh, and the second of which will make you groan.
First, incorporation IS different from bankruptcy. The latter does not have the same set of strictures on how you can interact with properties subject to its regulation as a corporation does. It also does not create a legal entity endowed with fictive personhood as well as a subset of the rights and responsibilities we assign to uterine citizens. Your complaint that it is unfair that corporate persons be taxed is no different in kind than a complaint it is unfair that they cannot vote.
Second, ownership as you use the term here is a separate fiction created by the state. Natural ownership perforce cannot extend to abstract entities, as natural ownership cannot extend beyond what you can grasp. Any claim that two forms of state-defined ownership (e.g., real estate and corporate ownership) must share any characteristics whatsoever is immediately suspect, because both are collectively-defined relationships between people and objects or ideas. There is no natural notion of what it means to “own” a “home”, let alone to “own” a “mortgaged” “home”, and to say nothing of “owning” “shares” of a “corporation”. The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth. The point this rambles towards is an observation that an argument that the custom of treating corporations as individual persons subject to taxation while not treating real estate as distinct legal persons with their own tax burden (or, indeed, income) is not beside the point; it IS the point. Claims that we must change a legal and customary behavior because it creates an unnatural distinction between two wholly unnatural concepts are as meaningful as e.g. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
Two points, the first of which will probably make you sigh, and the second of which will make you groan.
First, incorporation IS different from bankruptcy. The latter does not have the same set of strictures on how you can interact with properties subject to its regulation as a corporation does. It also does not create a legal entity endowed with fictive personhood as well as a subset of the rights and responsibilities we assign to uterine citizens. Your complaint that it is unfair that corporate persons be taxed is no different in kind than a complaint it is unfair that they cannot vote.
Second, ownership as you use the term here is a separate fiction created by the state. Natural ownership perforce cannot extend to abstract entities, as natural ownership cannot extend beyond what you can grasp. Any claim that two forms of state-defined ownership (e.g., real estate and corporate ownership) must share any characteristics whatsoever is immediately suspect, because both are collectively-defined relationships between people and objects or ideas. There is no natural notion of what it means to “own” a “home”, let alone to “own” a “mortgaged” “home”, and to say nothing of “owning” “shares” of a “corporation”. The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth. The point this rambles towards is an observation that an argument that the custom of treating corporations as individual persons subject to taxation while not treating real estate as distinct legal persons with their own tax burden (or, indeed, income) is not beside the point; it IS the point. Claims that we must change a legal and customary behavior because it creates an unnatural distinction between two wholly unnatural concepts are as meaningful as e.g. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
The corporation fiction is no different than the bankruptcy laws. Each protects some amount of an individuals assets. A corporation doesn’t exist without someone funding it, then they have ownership rights. It is a separate entity because there are laws that apply to those assets and liabilities, as there are laws that apply to my home. But I own them both.
Two points, the first of which will probably make you sigh, and the second of which will make you groan.
First, incorporation IS different from bankruptcy. The latter does not have the same set of strictures on how you can interact with properties subject to its regulation as a corporation does. It also does not create a legal entity endowed with fictive personhood as well as a subset of the rights and responsibilities we assign to uterine citizens. Your complaint that it is unfair that corporate persons be taxed is no different in kind than a complaint it is unfair that they cannot vote.
Second, ownership as you use the term here is a separate fiction created by the state. Natural ownership perforce cannot extend to abstract entities, as natural ownership cannot extend beyond what you can grasp. Any claim that two forms of state-defined ownership (e.g., real estate and corporate ownership) must share any characteristics whatsoever is immediately suspect, because both are collectively-defined relationships between people and objects or ideas. There is no natural notion of what it means to “own” a “home”, let alone to “own” a “mortgaged” “home”, and to say nothing of “owning” “shares” of a “corporation”. The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth. The point this rambles towards is an observation that an argument that the custom of treating corporations as individual persons subject to taxation while not treating real estate as distinct legal persons with their own tax burden (or, indeed, income) is not beside the point; it IS the point. Claims that we must change a legal and customary behavior because it creates an unnatural distinction between two wholly unnatural concepts are as meaningful as e.g. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
…a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
I was just saying this to my wife over dinner last night. It comes up every 6 months or so.
…a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
I was just saying this to my wife over dinner last night. It comes up every 6 months or so.
…a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
I was just saying this to my wife over dinner last night. It comes up every 6 months or so.
The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth…
Do not inherent meaning, and even truth of a sort reside within long established custom, and law which reflects that ?
I’ll grant you that the limited liability company is a relatively recent artificial construct, but to argue that home ‘ownership’ occupies a similar position within society is unpersuasive.
The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth…
Do not inherent meaning, and even truth of a sort reside within long established custom, and law which reflects that ?
I’ll grant you that the limited liability company is a relatively recent artificial construct, but to argue that home ‘ownership’ occupies a similar position within society is unpersuasive.
The ownership in any of these cases is entirely defined by law and custom; it has no inherent meaning or even truth…
Do not inherent meaning, and even truth of a sort reside within long established custom, and law which reflects that ?
I’ll grant you that the limited liability company is a relatively recent artificial construct, but to argue that home ‘ownership’ occupies a similar position within society is unpersuasive.
Marty is putting forward a naturalistic argument for “ownership” being interchangeable regardless of what is owned. I’m not sure why you would find the idea that laws and customs treat ownership of different kinds of “properties” differently to be unpersuasive, nor that custom in particular treats e.g. “owning” a loaf of bread differently than “owning” a parcel of land (inhabited or otherwise).
Marty is putting forward a naturalistic argument for “ownership” being interchangeable regardless of what is owned. I’m not sure why you would find the idea that laws and customs treat ownership of different kinds of “properties” differently to be unpersuasive, nor that custom in particular treats e.g. “owning” a loaf of bread differently than “owning” a parcel of land (inhabited or otherwise).
Marty is putting forward a naturalistic argument for “ownership” being interchangeable regardless of what is owned. I’m not sure why you would find the idea that laws and customs treat ownership of different kinds of “properties” differently to be unpersuasive, nor that custom in particular treats e.g. “owning” a loaf of bread differently than “owning” a parcel of land (inhabited or otherwise).
As a rabid partisan, and a wimpy liberal, I can understand the pickle that GOP officeholders are in. Take this one.
But I will never, ever have any respect for any conservative who puts forth the gratuitously insulting argument that the “Left” is all about the means justifying the ends.
As a rabid partisan, and a wimpy liberal, I can understand the pickle that GOP officeholders are in. Take this one.
But I will never, ever have any respect for any conservative who puts forth the gratuitously insulting argument that the “Left” is all about the means justifying the ends.
As a rabid partisan, and a wimpy liberal, I can understand the pickle that GOP officeholders are in. Take this one.
But I will never, ever have any respect for any conservative who puts forth the gratuitously insulting argument that the “Left” is all about the means justifying the ends.
It’s all kind of silly, all this parsing of meaning in an attempt to demonstrate there’s something inherently wrong or unfair with taxing corporate profits while also taxing dividends. The corporation exists as a legal entity. It is not the same thing as its owners. They are not one.
Marty isn’t responsible for paying corporate taxes anymore than the corporation is responsible for paying his income taxes. The corporation pays a rate on its profits and Marty pays a rate on the income he receives from what’s left over.
It has no deep philosophical meaning. Marty wants more money as income and wants to pay less in taxes. Everyone does. People like money. If he were being taxed on money he never got, that would be one thing, but that’s not what’s happening.
It’s all kind of silly, all this parsing of meaning in an attempt to demonstrate there’s something inherently wrong or unfair with taxing corporate profits while also taxing dividends. The corporation exists as a legal entity. It is not the same thing as its owners. They are not one.
Marty isn’t responsible for paying corporate taxes anymore than the corporation is responsible for paying his income taxes. The corporation pays a rate on its profits and Marty pays a rate on the income he receives from what’s left over.
It has no deep philosophical meaning. Marty wants more money as income and wants to pay less in taxes. Everyone does. People like money. If he were being taxed on money he never got, that would be one thing, but that’s not what’s happening.
It’s all kind of silly, all this parsing of meaning in an attempt to demonstrate there’s something inherently wrong or unfair with taxing corporate profits while also taxing dividends. The corporation exists as a legal entity. It is not the same thing as its owners. They are not one.
Marty isn’t responsible for paying corporate taxes anymore than the corporation is responsible for paying his income taxes. The corporation pays a rate on its profits and Marty pays a rate on the income he receives from what’s left over.
It has no deep philosophical meaning. Marty wants more money as income and wants to pay less in taxes. Everyone does. People like money. If he were being taxed on money he never got, that would be one thing, but that’s not what’s happening.
if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
Maybe you do. But be assured this is far from the usual approach.
It probably doesn’t need saying that the fact that some portion of what they have paid in mortgage payments is just what they would have paid in rent at this point. So what they have really paid (in those opportunity costs mentioned earlier) towards the house is even less than what they have paid in mortgage payments.
Note that I’m not arguing that nobody feels the way you apparently do on the subject. Just that not only is it objectively (economically) false, it isn’t a universal feeling either.
if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
Maybe you do. But be assured this is far from the usual approach.
It probably doesn’t need saying that the fact that some portion of what they have paid in mortgage payments is just what they would have paid in rent at this point. So what they have really paid (in those opportunity costs mentioned earlier) towards the house is even less than what they have paid in mortgage payments.
Note that I’m not arguing that nobody feels the way you apparently do on the subject. Just that not only is it objectively (economically) false, it isn’t a universal feeling either.
if it is getting foreclosed you don’t talk about losing what you paid for it, you talk about losing what it is worth today.
Maybe you do. But be assured this is far from the usual approach.
It probably doesn’t need saying that the fact that some portion of what they have paid in mortgage payments is just what they would have paid in rent at this point. So what they have really paid (in those opportunity costs mentioned earlier) towards the house is even less than what they have paid in mortgage payments.
Note that I’m not arguing that nobody feels the way you apparently do on the subject. Just that not only is it objectively (economically) false, it isn’t a universal feeling either.
I think we all (me incluided) may be being a little too hard on Marty here. Like the rest of us, he lives in a society which has decided that corporations are people — for some (increasing) number of purposes. It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Personally, I think that being immortal (barring severe bad fortune, which we all are subject to) is enough of a special benefit. More than enough to balance out us mere mortals getting (political) speech and a vote where they do not.
P.S. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
It is abundantly obvious that humidity is redder than curiosity. Humidity, especially when the temperature is high, leads to shorter tempers, where curiosity generally does not. And everybody knows that anger is red. QED No context required.
I think we all (me incluided) may be being a little too hard on Marty here. Like the rest of us, he lives in a society which has decided that corporations are people — for some (increasing) number of purposes. It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Personally, I think that being immortal (barring severe bad fortune, which we all are subject to) is enough of a special benefit. More than enough to balance out us mere mortals getting (political) speech and a vote where they do not.
P.S. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
It is abundantly obvious that humidity is redder than curiosity. Humidity, especially when the temperature is high, leads to shorter tempers, where curiosity generally does not. And everybody knows that anger is red. QED No context required.
I think we all (me incluided) may be being a little too hard on Marty here. Like the rest of us, he lives in a society which has decided that corporations are people — for some (increasing) number of purposes. It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Personally, I think that being immortal (barring severe bad fortune, which we all are subject to) is enough of a special benefit. More than enough to balance out us mere mortals getting (political) speech and a vote where they do not.
P.S. a contextless statement that humidity is redder than curiosity.
It is abundantly obvious that humidity is redder than curiosity. Humidity, especially when the temperature is high, leads to shorter tempers, where curiosity generally does not. And everybody knows that anger is red. QED No context required.
Curiosity is currently covered in Martian dust. it is objectively red.
Curiosity is currently covered in Martian dust. it is objectively red.
Curiosity is currently covered in Martian dust. it is objectively red.
I contend that Curiosity is Simply Red.
I contend that Curiosity is Simply Red.
I contend that Curiosity is Simply Red.
Color me curious.
Curious IS a color like a filing for incorporation in Delaware is a human being and like money is speech.
Bullets of all colors flying through the air are free speech.
I fear for Hillary Clinton’s and Tim Kaine’s lives over the next four weeks and after the election.
I hope the Secret Service has all Republicans under close surveillance.
The latter are curious yellow.
Color me curious.
Curious IS a color like a filing for incorporation in Delaware is a human being and like money is speech.
Bullets of all colors flying through the air are free speech.
I fear for Hillary Clinton’s and Tim Kaine’s lives over the next four weeks and after the election.
I hope the Secret Service has all Republicans under close surveillance.
The latter are curious yellow.
Color me curious.
Curious IS a color like a filing for incorporation in Delaware is a human being and like money is speech.
Bullets of all colors flying through the air are free speech.
I fear for Hillary Clinton’s and Tim Kaine’s lives over the next four weeks and after the election.
I hope the Secret Service has all Republicans under close surveillance.
The latter are curious yellow.
Ah, the ancient memories which are dredged up!
As the count reminds me, Curious could be yellow. Or (the following year) blue. But red somehow never was an option.
Ah, the ancient memories which are dredged up!
As the count reminds me, Curious could be yellow. Or (the following year) blue. But red somehow never was an option.
Ah, the ancient memories which are dredged up!
As the count reminds me, Curious could be yellow. Or (the following year) blue. But red somehow never was an option.
It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Well sure. What is objectionable is the assertion that the shareholders can shapeshift (i.e., one minute they are the corporation, and the next the corporation is “somebody else”)at will.
It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Well sure. What is objectionable is the assertion that the shareholders can shapeshift (i.e., one minute they are the corporation, and the next the corporation is “somebody else”)at will.
It’s understandable that the concept should have worked itself deep enough into his worldview for him (and lots of others, let’s not forget) to assume, on an unconscious level, that they really are persons. Persons who deserve the same treatment that he gets — or, in the case of taxes, would like to get.
Well sure. What is objectionable is the assertion that the shareholders can shapeshift (i.e., one minute they are the corporation, and the next the corporation is “somebody else”)at will.
Give credit where credit is due. Donald Johnson predicted blowback something along these lines:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a49548/us-navy-ships-shot-at-yemen/
Give credit where credit is due. Donald Johnson predicted blowback something along these lines:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a49548/us-navy-ships-shot-at-yemen/
Give credit where credit is due. Donald Johnson predicted blowback something along these lines:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a49548/us-navy-ships-shot-at-yemen/
FWIW, I too am a partial owner of many businesses. FWIW, I too own a house, although a certain financial institution reminds me monthly that I am not the sole owner.
Here is what my ownership of my house entitles me to.
I can paint it any color I want. I can sit in any room I want. I can invite people to come and stay with me. I can move the furniture around at will. I can add rooms to it, remove rooms from it, tear down walls, or paper the walls with discarded newspapers if I so wish.
Here is what my ownership of the various corporations that I have a stake in entitles me to.
I can sell my stake to somebody else.
Apparently the boards and executive leadership of these various corporations are obliged to take my personal interests into account when they make decisions, but they never call me to ask what I’m thinking. If I don’t like what they do, mostly what I can do about it is sell my stake to somebody else, if it’s that important to me.
So I don’t really see the meaning of the word “ownership” to be quite the same in the two cases. At a practical level.
I’m sure it’s different if your involvement with businesses that you own extends to hands-on management or governance. In that case I would imagine your sense of identification with the business would be much stronger.
But it’s still not really yours in the sense that your house is yours. If you disagree, ask yourself what would happen if you decided to take corporate funds and buy yourself a nice Bentley.
I mean, there are ways to make that happen, but they usually involve some accounting sleight of hand.
In any case, the original question at hand was whether corporate taxes represented a double taxation levied on the corp’s owners.
Depending on how you look at it, it might. So what?
My income is taxed when it’s paid to me. Then, it’s taxed when I spend it. If I spend it on a house or a car, I’m taxed for owning those things.
My wife receives SS. She is taxed on it, even though SS itself is funded by a tax. Which she herself paid for many years.
In general, we tax flows of money. Income, sales, some gifts, inheritance, realizing capital gains.
I guess we could tax other things instead. Wealth, for example. Ownership of luxury goods. We could tax the importation of goods into the country.
Instead, we tend to tax the transfer of money from one party to another. I assume it makes sense at some level to organize things that way, because otherwise why would we do it that way?
Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.
But if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another, the “same dollar” is going to end up getting taxed multiple times.
Because money flows. It’s a fluid, fungible representation of value. That’s why it exists.
FWIW, I too am a partial owner of many businesses. FWIW, I too own a house, although a certain financial institution reminds me monthly that I am not the sole owner.
Here is what my ownership of my house entitles me to.
I can paint it any color I want. I can sit in any room I want. I can invite people to come and stay with me. I can move the furniture around at will. I can add rooms to it, remove rooms from it, tear down walls, or paper the walls with discarded newspapers if I so wish.
Here is what my ownership of the various corporations that I have a stake in entitles me to.
I can sell my stake to somebody else.
Apparently the boards and executive leadership of these various corporations are obliged to take my personal interests into account when they make decisions, but they never call me to ask what I’m thinking. If I don’t like what they do, mostly what I can do about it is sell my stake to somebody else, if it’s that important to me.
So I don’t really see the meaning of the word “ownership” to be quite the same in the two cases. At a practical level.
I’m sure it’s different if your involvement with businesses that you own extends to hands-on management or governance. In that case I would imagine your sense of identification with the business would be much stronger.
But it’s still not really yours in the sense that your house is yours. If you disagree, ask yourself what would happen if you decided to take corporate funds and buy yourself a nice Bentley.
I mean, there are ways to make that happen, but they usually involve some accounting sleight of hand.
In any case, the original question at hand was whether corporate taxes represented a double taxation levied on the corp’s owners.
Depending on how you look at it, it might. So what?
My income is taxed when it’s paid to me. Then, it’s taxed when I spend it. If I spend it on a house or a car, I’m taxed for owning those things.
My wife receives SS. She is taxed on it, even though SS itself is funded by a tax. Which she herself paid for many years.
In general, we tax flows of money. Income, sales, some gifts, inheritance, realizing capital gains.
I guess we could tax other things instead. Wealth, for example. Ownership of luxury goods. We could tax the importation of goods into the country.
Instead, we tend to tax the transfer of money from one party to another. I assume it makes sense at some level to organize things that way, because otherwise why would we do it that way?
Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.
But if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another, the “same dollar” is going to end up getting taxed multiple times.
Because money flows. It’s a fluid, fungible representation of value. That’s why it exists.
FWIW, I too am a partial owner of many businesses. FWIW, I too own a house, although a certain financial institution reminds me monthly that I am not the sole owner.
Here is what my ownership of my house entitles me to.
I can paint it any color I want. I can sit in any room I want. I can invite people to come and stay with me. I can move the furniture around at will. I can add rooms to it, remove rooms from it, tear down walls, or paper the walls with discarded newspapers if I so wish.
Here is what my ownership of the various corporations that I have a stake in entitles me to.
I can sell my stake to somebody else.
Apparently the boards and executive leadership of these various corporations are obliged to take my personal interests into account when they make decisions, but they never call me to ask what I’m thinking. If I don’t like what they do, mostly what I can do about it is sell my stake to somebody else, if it’s that important to me.
So I don’t really see the meaning of the word “ownership” to be quite the same in the two cases. At a practical level.
I’m sure it’s different if your involvement with businesses that you own extends to hands-on management or governance. In that case I would imagine your sense of identification with the business would be much stronger.
But it’s still not really yours in the sense that your house is yours. If you disagree, ask yourself what would happen if you decided to take corporate funds and buy yourself a nice Bentley.
I mean, there are ways to make that happen, but they usually involve some accounting sleight of hand.
In any case, the original question at hand was whether corporate taxes represented a double taxation levied on the corp’s owners.
Depending on how you look at it, it might. So what?
My income is taxed when it’s paid to me. Then, it’s taxed when I spend it. If I spend it on a house or a car, I’m taxed for owning those things.
My wife receives SS. She is taxed on it, even though SS itself is funded by a tax. Which she herself paid for many years.
In general, we tax flows of money. Income, sales, some gifts, inheritance, realizing capital gains.
I guess we could tax other things instead. Wealth, for example. Ownership of luxury goods. We could tax the importation of goods into the country.
Instead, we tend to tax the transfer of money from one party to another. I assume it makes sense at some level to organize things that way, because otherwise why would we do it that way?
Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.
But if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another, the “same dollar” is going to end up getting taxed multiple times.
Because money flows. It’s a fluid, fungible representation of value. That’s why it exists.
if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another
If you’re going to *tax the flow of money* from one party to another.
Can’t blame my tablet, I’m at my laptop tonight.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in my keyboard, but in my brain.
if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another
If you’re going to *tax the flow of money* from one party to another.
Can’t blame my tablet, I’m at my laptop tonight.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in my keyboard, but in my brain.
if you’re going to transfer flows of money from one party to another
If you’re going to *tax the flow of money* from one party to another.
Can’t blame my tablet, I’m at my laptop tonight.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in my keyboard, but in my brain.
One minor glitch in something that long is better than I usually manage. And since I like to think it’s more a matter of my brain running faster than my fingers (not to mention the growing delay time in the keyboard, which keeps swapping around letters), I have to believe it isn’t necessarily your brain either. (Of course, if I was in major disagreement with the substance, I suppose I might be less forgiving. 😉
One minor glitch in something that long is better than I usually manage. And since I like to think it’s more a matter of my brain running faster than my fingers (not to mention the growing delay time in the keyboard, which keeps swapping around letters), I have to believe it isn’t necessarily your brain either. (Of course, if I was in major disagreement with the substance, I suppose I might be less forgiving. 😉
One minor glitch in something that long is better than I usually manage. And since I like to think it’s more a matter of my brain running faster than my fingers (not to mention the growing delay time in the keyboard, which keeps swapping around letters), I have to believe it isn’t necessarily your brain either. (Of course, if I was in major disagreement with the substance, I suppose I might be less forgiving. 😉
Another way to look at a “double tax” on income is a single tax ata higher rate. In any event, we have lowered the tax rate on qualified dicidends to 20% and the effective tax rate of most large corporations is below the 35% maximum, so there is some integration there. Note also that IIRC widespread ownership of stock is mostly through retirement accounts where dividends and capital gains are received tax free and often the money placed in the account was tax free as well.
Another way to look at a “double tax” on income is a single tax ata higher rate. In any event, we have lowered the tax rate on qualified dicidends to 20% and the effective tax rate of most large corporations is below the 35% maximum, so there is some integration there. Note also that IIRC widespread ownership of stock is mostly through retirement accounts where dividends and capital gains are received tax free and often the money placed in the account was tax free as well.
Another way to look at a “double tax” on income is a single tax ata higher rate. In any event, we have lowered the tax rate on qualified dicidends to 20% and the effective tax rate of most large corporations is below the 35% maximum, so there is some integration there. Note also that IIRC widespread ownership of stock is mostly through retirement accounts where dividends and capital gains are received tax free and often the money placed in the account was tax free as well.
Also, too, is there anything less shocking than learning Donald Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting women?
Also, too, is there anything less shocking than learning Donald Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting women?
Also, too, is there anything less shocking than learning Donald Trump has been accused of sexually assaulting women?
Well, if we learn that Trump’s real net worth is barely a couple of million, i.e. that his riches (and vaunted business abilities are as real as a degree from Trump U). That will be about equally unshocking.
Well, if we learn that Trump’s real net worth is barely a couple of million, i.e. that his riches (and vaunted business abilities are as real as a degree from Trump U). That will be about equally unshocking.
Well, if we learn that Trump’s real net worth is barely a couple of million, i.e. that his riches (and vaunted business abilities are as real as a degree from Trump U). That will be about equally unshocking.
True dat.
But Paul Ryan still thinks he’s qualified to be President. Rubes and Cruz too. Let’s not let this go down the memory hole in 2020.
True dat.
But Paul Ryan still thinks he’s qualified to be President. Rubes and Cruz too. Let’s not let this go down the memory hole in 2020.
True dat.
But Paul Ryan still thinks he’s qualified to be President. Rubes and Cruz too. Let’s not let this go down the memory hole in 2020.
Quite a nominee you have there GOP.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/trump-on-statutory-rape/index.html
Quite a nominee you have there GOP.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/trump-on-statutory-rape/index.html
Quite a nominee you have there GOP.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/trump-on-statutory-rape/index.html
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified. As Clinton talks about who she wants on the Supreme Court lots of Republicans decide Trump is a vote of necessity. The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified. As Clinton talks about who she wants on the Supreme Court lots of Republicans decide Trump is a vote of necessity. The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified. As Clinton talks about who she wants on the Supreme Court lots of Republicans decide Trump is a vote of necessity. The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
he just believes she is more unqualified.
oh please.
Ryan knows the GOP base still likes Trump and therefore he can’t keep his job as speaker or as Representative (given his district) if he comes out against Trump. he’s a fucking coward.
he just believes she is more unqualified.
oh please.
Ryan knows the GOP base still likes Trump and therefore he can’t keep his job as speaker or as Representative (given his district) if he comes out against Trump. he’s a fucking coward.
he just believes she is more unqualified.
oh please.
Ryan knows the GOP base still likes Trump and therefore he can’t keep his job as speaker or as Representative (given his district) if he comes out against Trump. he’s a fucking coward.
I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.
I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.
I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
Trump repeatedly vowed to order our troops to torture enemy soldiers, to order them to murder the innocent families of suspected terrorists, and to invade foreign nations to steal their national resources. He also said that South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia should have nuclear weapons.
If you genuinely think the Supreme Court is the most important issue facing us, I pity you. Please tell me that you are just pretending.
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
Trump repeatedly vowed to order our troops to torture enemy soldiers, to order them to murder the innocent families of suspected terrorists, and to invade foreign nations to steal their national resources. He also said that South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia should have nuclear weapons.
If you genuinely think the Supreme Court is the most important issue facing us, I pity you. Please tell me that you are just pretending.
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
Trump repeatedly vowed to order our troops to torture enemy soldiers, to order them to murder the innocent families of suspected terrorists, and to invade foreign nations to steal their national resources. He also said that South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia should have nuclear weapons.
If you genuinely think the Supreme Court is the most important issue facing us, I pity you. Please tell me that you are just pretending.
When Marty is right, Marty is right: The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
Whether a somewhat hawkish, somewhat authoritarian, generally liberal woman or an incredibly touchy, openly spiteful, short-fingered vulgarian man gets to appoint the next justice or three is indeed going to be the main outcome of this election.
–TP
When Marty is right, Marty is right: The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
Whether a somewhat hawkish, somewhat authoritarian, generally liberal woman or an incredibly touchy, openly spiteful, short-fingered vulgarian man gets to appoint the next justice or three is indeed going to be the main outcome of this election.
–TP
When Marty is right, Marty is right: The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.
Whether a somewhat hawkish, somewhat authoritarian, generally liberal woman or an incredibly touchy, openly spiteful, short-fingered vulgarian man gets to appoint the next justice or three is indeed going to be the main outcome of this election.
–TP
Ah yes, war and peace issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/middleeast/yemen-rebels-missile-warship.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
So now the Houthis are apparently shooting at the US Navy, though they denied the first attack. We have a new set of enemies thanks to our bipartisan consensus behind arming the Saudis to the teeth and refueling their planes so they can drop more bombs on civilians. Not to mention the Saudi caused famine, which, btw, was never mentioned in the mainstream press in the US until very recently afaik.
So is there any slight chance someone will ask the candidates about this? Is there going to be a third debate? In the remote chance someone does ask, my prediction–
Clinton will lie about Yemen or squirm very carefully around what’s been happening. She has to.
Trump could say anything, but will probably be bloodthirsty, and say it’s because we gave umpteen dollars to Iran.
Ah yes, war and peace issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/middleeast/yemen-rebels-missile-warship.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
So now the Houthis are apparently shooting at the US Navy, though they denied the first attack. We have a new set of enemies thanks to our bipartisan consensus behind arming the Saudis to the teeth and refueling their planes so they can drop more bombs on civilians. Not to mention the Saudi caused famine, which, btw, was never mentioned in the mainstream press in the US until very recently afaik.
So is there any slight chance someone will ask the candidates about this? Is there going to be a third debate? In the remote chance someone does ask, my prediction–
Clinton will lie about Yemen or squirm very carefully around what’s been happening. She has to.
Trump could say anything, but will probably be bloodthirsty, and say it’s because we gave umpteen dollars to Iran.
Ah yes, war and peace issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/middleeast/yemen-rebels-missile-warship.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
So now the Houthis are apparently shooting at the US Navy, though they denied the first attack. We have a new set of enemies thanks to our bipartisan consensus behind arming the Saudis to the teeth and refueling their planes so they can drop more bombs on civilians. Not to mention the Saudi caused famine, which, btw, was never mentioned in the mainstream press in the US until very recently afaik.
So is there any slight chance someone will ask the candidates about this? Is there going to be a third debate? In the remote chance someone does ask, my prediction–
Clinton will lie about Yemen or squirm very carefully around what’s been happening. She has to.
Trump could say anything, but will probably be bloodthirsty, and say it’s because we gave umpteen dollars to Iran.
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
without wanting to put words in marty’s mouth, what i think this amounts to is ‘the only reason the gop can come with for voting for trump is control of the court’.
“I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.”
what, no goats?
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
without wanting to put words in marty’s mouth, what i think this amounts to is ‘the only reason the gop can come with for voting for trump is control of the court’.
“I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.”
what, no goats?
“The fundamental policy decision of this race is control of the court.”
without wanting to put words in marty’s mouth, what i think this amounts to is ‘the only reason the gop can come with for voting for trump is control of the court’.
“I guess we’re in live boy dead girl territory now.”
what, no goats?
If trump wins does anyone think he’s going to take direction from the GOP party elders on who to appoint to the court? He might do it because he doesn’t give a shit and it would make things easy, but what better way to spite these guys that betrayed him than appointing some liberal to the court?
My hope is that Trump loses and in his concession rant blames it on lack of support from the GOP. “We would have won if the establishment hadn’t stabbed me in the back!!” He’ll probably do that and claim Hillary stole it.
All that said, I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.
If trump wins does anyone think he’s going to take direction from the GOP party elders on who to appoint to the court? He might do it because he doesn’t give a shit and it would make things easy, but what better way to spite these guys that betrayed him than appointing some liberal to the court?
My hope is that Trump loses and in his concession rant blames it on lack of support from the GOP. “We would have won if the establishment hadn’t stabbed me in the back!!” He’ll probably do that and claim Hillary stole it.
All that said, I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.
If trump wins does anyone think he’s going to take direction from the GOP party elders on who to appoint to the court? He might do it because he doesn’t give a shit and it would make things easy, but what better way to spite these guys that betrayed him than appointing some liberal to the court?
My hope is that Trump loses and in his concession rant blames it on lack of support from the GOP. “We would have won if the establishment hadn’t stabbed me in the back!!” He’ll probably do that and claim Hillary stole it.
All that said, I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.
ugh,
We all tend to say “appoint” when we mean “nominate”. I did it myself a couple of comments ago. With that said:
He, Trump has already published a little list of his proposed nominees. Being a lazy, lazy man, he’s not likely to spend a lot of time revising it. If I’m not mistaken, his irredeemable base and the GOP establishment they hate were both pleased by the names on that list.
So, no: President He, Trump would not nominate a liberal to the court.
And: if the GOP holds on to the Senate, He Trump’s nominees would be confirmed double-quick pronto.
–TP
ugh,
We all tend to say “appoint” when we mean “nominate”. I did it myself a couple of comments ago. With that said:
He, Trump has already published a little list of his proposed nominees. Being a lazy, lazy man, he’s not likely to spend a lot of time revising it. If I’m not mistaken, his irredeemable base and the GOP establishment they hate were both pleased by the names on that list.
So, no: President He, Trump would not nominate a liberal to the court.
And: if the GOP holds on to the Senate, He Trump’s nominees would be confirmed double-quick pronto.
–TP
ugh,
We all tend to say “appoint” when we mean “nominate”. I did it myself a couple of comments ago. With that said:
He, Trump has already published a little list of his proposed nominees. Being a lazy, lazy man, he’s not likely to spend a lot of time revising it. If I’m not mistaken, his irredeemable base and the GOP establishment they hate were both pleased by the names on that list.
So, no: President He, Trump would not nominate a liberal to the court.
And: if the GOP holds on to the Senate, He Trump’s nominees would be confirmed double-quick pronto.
–TP
“I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.”
Depends on what combination of drugs he is on at the time.
“I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.”
Depends on what combination of drugs he is on at the time.
“I can actually see Trump giving a gracious concession speech.”
Depends on what combination of drugs he is on at the time.
TP – you’re probably right. I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills. OTOH, on the social issues conservatives care most about at the Court Trump seems to have different views.
Last debate is October 20 IiRC
TP – you’re probably right. I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills. OTOH, on the social issues conservatives care most about at the Court Trump seems to have different views.
Last debate is October 20 IiRC
TP – you’re probably right. I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills. OTOH, on the social issues conservatives care most about at the Court Trump seems to have different views.
Last debate is October 20 IiRC
Trump would only nominate people who look like they’d be useful and loyal. because loyalty and utility (sexual utility, for women) are his main criteria for judging people.
all those evangelicals who think he’s going to appoint a bunch of Roy Moores are delusional.
Trump would only nominate people who look like they’d be useful and loyal. because loyalty and utility (sexual utility, for women) are his main criteria for judging people.
all those evangelicals who think he’s going to appoint a bunch of Roy Moores are delusional.
Trump would only nominate people who look like they’d be useful and loyal. because loyalty and utility (sexual utility, for women) are his main criteria for judging people.
all those evangelicals who think he’s going to appoint a bunch of Roy Moores are delusional.
Whoever wins, it’s a hard rain’s gonna fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCGoOPM2_x0
Whoever wins, it’s a hard rain’s gonna fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCGoOPM2_x0
Whoever wins, it’s a hard rain’s gonna fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCGoOPM2_x0
“Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.”
Watch it there, you might cut yourself on Occam’s Razor. Put that thing down.
For the record, I’m dumb* about a lot of things. I don’t why everyone one else in the country can’t admit that too.
*But I’m still an elitist apparently and I can shoot my mouth off at will. I’m just a regula Thomas Jefferson.
“Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.”
Watch it there, you might cut yourself on Occam’s Razor. Put that thing down.
For the record, I’m dumb* about a lot of things. I don’t why everyone one else in the country can’t admit that too.
*But I’m still an elitist apparently and I can shoot my mouth off at will. I’m just a regula Thomas Jefferson.
“Then again, maybe we’re just dumb.”
Watch it there, you might cut yourself on Occam’s Razor. Put that thing down.
For the record, I’m dumb* about a lot of things. I don’t why everyone one else in the country can’t admit that too.
*But I’m still an elitist apparently and I can shoot my mouth off at will. I’m just a regula Thomas Jefferson.
I’m curious purple what we should call business losses/capital expenses and/or stock market losses written off against gains on our income tax forms.
Double tax refunds?
Double fairness?
Double indemnity?
Double tax subsidies?
Double your pleasure, double your fun?
I’m curious purple what we should call business losses/capital expenses and/or stock market losses written off against gains on our income tax forms.
Double tax refunds?
Double fairness?
Double indemnity?
Double tax subsidies?
Double your pleasure, double your fun?
I’m curious purple what we should call business losses/capital expenses and/or stock market losses written off against gains on our income tax forms.
Double tax refunds?
Double fairness?
Double indemnity?
Double tax subsidies?
Double your pleasure, double your fun?
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
I’m not so sure. Does Ryan really think she is unqualified? Or does he just think she would do things that he wouldn’t want done? (And decline to go along with things that he does want done.)
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
I’m not so sure. Does Ryan really think she is unqualified? Or does he just think she would do things that he wouldn’t want done? (And decline to go along with things that he does want done.)
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
I’m not so sure. Does Ryan really think she is unqualified? Or does he just think she would do things that he wouldn’t want done? (And decline to go along with things that he does want done.)
I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills.
Totally agree. He may be lazy enough that he wouldn’t ordinarily bother to go revisit that list. But even more than lazy, he is vindictivce. So if he felt betrayed (and he sure sounds like that now), he would make the effort. I’m not sure he would deliberately go for liberals as liberals. But he would make damn sure to avoid conservatives (i.e. justices wanted by the conservatives), just to punish those who (as he saw it) betrayed him.
I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills.
Totally agree. He may be lazy enough that he wouldn’t ordinarily bother to go revisit that list. But even more than lazy, he is vindictivce. So if he felt betrayed (and he sure sounds like that now), he would make the effort. I’m not sure he would deliberately go for liberals as liberals. But he would make damn sure to avoid conservatives (i.e. justices wanted by the conservatives), just to punish those who (as he saw it) betrayed him.
I guess I just don’t see Trump getting along with people he thinks betrayed him. Although if he wins that might cure all ills.
Totally agree. He may be lazy enough that he wouldn’t ordinarily bother to go revisit that list. But even more than lazy, he is vindictivce. So if he felt betrayed (and he sure sounds like that now), he would make the effort. I’m not sure he would deliberately go for liberals as liberals. But he would make damn sure to avoid conservatives (i.e. justices wanted by the conservatives), just to punish those who (as he saw it) betrayed him.
GftNC, it obviously deserves it’s own thread. Want to write something up and send it in?
GftNC, it obviously deserves it’s own thread. Want to write something up and send it in?
GftNC, it obviously deserves it’s own thread. Want to write something up and send it in?
he can’t help it if he’s lucky
he can’t help it if he’s lucky
he can’t help it if he’s lucky
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
feels like a strange choice, IMO. Dylan had a string of incredibly great records with some of the best lyrics rock has ever produced. and many other musicians adopted his pointed surrealism (not least of all Lennon and McCartney). but all of his truly classic stuff (everything the media will play today) was done 50 years ago.
but… The Byrds’ ‘Mr Tamborine Man’ just popped up on my iPhone. BRB.
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
feels like a strange choice, IMO. Dylan had a string of incredibly great records with some of the best lyrics rock has ever produced. and many other musicians adopted his pointed surrealism (not least of all Lennon and McCartney). but all of his truly classic stuff (everything the media will play today) was done 50 years ago.
but… The Byrds’ ‘Mr Tamborine Man’ just popped up on my iPhone. BRB.
Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, and nobody comments? Really?
feels like a strange choice, IMO. Dylan had a string of incredibly great records with some of the best lyrics rock has ever produced. and many other musicians adopted his pointed surrealism (not least of all Lennon and McCartney). but all of his truly classic stuff (everything the media will play today) was done 50 years ago.
but… The Byrds’ ‘Mr Tamborine Man’ just popped up on my iPhone. BRB.
We are waiting for Trump’s take on Dylan’s prize.
Then, Giuliani’s double down elaboration.
Then Ryan’s weaseling. Probably thinks Goodfella’s heartthrob Bobby Vinton should have won.
It ain’t no use sitting and wondering why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Y3KfJs6T0
I’d like to know where he’s going to put the Prize. Maybe a cool, dry place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkSCiUzD6Q
If there is a thread on Dylan, make it a game, like maybe every comment can be one line from a Dylan song and every successive comment an answer to the previous, and see where it goes.
We are waiting for Trump’s take on Dylan’s prize.
Then, Giuliani’s double down elaboration.
Then Ryan’s weaseling. Probably thinks Goodfella’s heartthrob Bobby Vinton should have won.
It ain’t no use sitting and wondering why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Y3KfJs6T0
I’d like to know where he’s going to put the Prize. Maybe a cool, dry place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkSCiUzD6Q
If there is a thread on Dylan, make it a game, like maybe every comment can be one line from a Dylan song and every successive comment an answer to the previous, and see where it goes.
We are waiting for Trump’s take on Dylan’s prize.
Then, Giuliani’s double down elaboration.
Then Ryan’s weaseling. Probably thinks Goodfella’s heartthrob Bobby Vinton should have won.
It ain’t no use sitting and wondering why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Y3KfJs6T0
I’d like to know where he’s going to put the Prize. Maybe a cool, dry place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkSCiUzD6Q
If there is a thread on Dylan, make it a game, like maybe every comment can be one line from a Dylan song and every successive comment an answer to the previous, and see where it goes.
“and see where it goes.”
I predict it will roll like a stone.
“and see where it goes.”
I predict it will roll like a stone.
“and see where it goes.”
I predict it will roll like a stone.
Thanks wj, but I don’t know if I could really adequately convey his importance to me (and I think to much of my generation, which admittedly is the same as many of yours). I cannot claim to know everything about him, as the Count does about the Beatles, but when I sat down some time ago to write a list (someone had asked) of his truly great songs, the list just went on and on and on. And, for example, there were few comments as adequate to express one’s contempt for Cheney as a piece I saw on TV which just had a montage of photos of him, and of the war, to a soundtrack of Masters of War. When William Zanzinger died, newspaper obituaries meant a new generation read about who he was, and what he had done, purely because of The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol. Our Hurricand thread was called Shelter from the Storm. I could go on and on (supreme Rock song: Like a Rolling Stone; supreme love song: too many to mention; supreme song of political protest: too many to mention etc etc), but better not. I’d rather know what you all think….
Thanks wj, but I don’t know if I could really adequately convey his importance to me (and I think to much of my generation, which admittedly is the same as many of yours). I cannot claim to know everything about him, as the Count does about the Beatles, but when I sat down some time ago to write a list (someone had asked) of his truly great songs, the list just went on and on and on. And, for example, there were few comments as adequate to express one’s contempt for Cheney as a piece I saw on TV which just had a montage of photos of him, and of the war, to a soundtrack of Masters of War. When William Zanzinger died, newspaper obituaries meant a new generation read about who he was, and what he had done, purely because of The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol. Our Hurricand thread was called Shelter from the Storm. I could go on and on (supreme Rock song: Like a Rolling Stone; supreme love song: too many to mention; supreme song of political protest: too many to mention etc etc), but better not. I’d rather know what you all think….
Thanks wj, but I don’t know if I could really adequately convey his importance to me (and I think to much of my generation, which admittedly is the same as many of yours). I cannot claim to know everything about him, as the Count does about the Beatles, but when I sat down some time ago to write a list (someone had asked) of his truly great songs, the list just went on and on and on. And, for example, there were few comments as adequate to express one’s contempt for Cheney as a piece I saw on TV which just had a montage of photos of him, and of the war, to a soundtrack of Masters of War. When William Zanzinger died, newspaper obituaries meant a new generation read about who he was, and what he had done, purely because of The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol. Our Hurricand thread was called Shelter from the Storm. I could go on and on (supreme Rock song: Like a Rolling Stone; supreme love song: too many to mention; supreme song of political protest: too many to mention etc etc), but better not. I’d rather know what you all think….
was DocSci prescient with the prior thread’s title?
was DocSci prescient with the prior thread’s title?
was DocSci prescient with the prior thread’s title?
Even with Trump at his most vindictive he would chose judges that will not interfere with his job as dictator and self-enricher, and that combination of authoritarianism and corruption is easier found on the Right (at least in the US).
Even with Trump at his most vindictive he would chose judges that will not interfere with his job as dictator and self-enricher, and that combination of authoritarianism and corruption is easier found on the Right (at least in the US).
Even with Trump at his most vindictive he would chose judges that will not interfere with his job as dictator and self-enricher, and that combination of authoritarianism and corruption is easier found on the Right (at least in the US).
Barack Obama on when Dylan came to the White House to receive the Medal of Honor:
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Barack Obama on when Dylan came to the White House to receive the Medal of Honor:
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Barack Obama on when Dylan came to the White House to receive the Medal of Honor:
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
He may disagree with her proposed policies, but this sounds to me more like Im-rubber-youre-glue than a serious evaluation. I think Dick Cheney might actually be a worse president than Trump, but it’s not because Cheney doesn’t
understand the US government or international institutions etc. Cheney is qualified, Trump is not- based on Trump’s statements it’s not clear if his understanding of the federal government, the economy, int’l institutions exceeds that of a bright 8th grader.
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
He may disagree with her proposed policies, but this sounds to me more like Im-rubber-youre-glue than a serious evaluation. I think Dick Cheney might actually be a worse president than Trump, but it’s not because Cheney doesn’t
understand the US government or international institutions etc. Cheney is qualified, Trump is not- based on Trump’s statements it’s not clear if his understanding of the federal government, the economy, int’l institutions exceeds that of a bright 8th grader.
Ryan doesnt think Trump is qualified to be President, he just believes she is more unqualified.
He may disagree with her proposed policies, but this sounds to me more like Im-rubber-youre-glue than a serious evaluation. I think Dick Cheney might actually be a worse president than Trump, but it’s not because Cheney doesn’t
understand the US government or international institutions etc. Cheney is qualified, Trump is not- based on Trump’s statements it’s not clear if his understanding of the federal government, the economy, int’l institutions exceeds that of a bright 8th grader.
If dogs run free,
then
what
must be,
must be
and that is all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC-XgC1ZLo0
If dogs run free,
then
what
must be,
must be
and that is all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC-XgC1ZLo0
If dogs run free,
then
what
must be,
must be
and that is all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC-XgC1ZLo0
Yup, to GFTNC’s most recent comment.
Got to say, too, in the annals of Presidential commentary, Barack Obama does a nice job too right there.
“You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.”
Not the Gettysburg Address certainly, but as literature goes, it sure beats “”There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Which is why The Who are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and George W. Bush is painting his toes in the bathtub.
It may even beat “Tear down this wall!”, since, you know, someone might have to say it again, probably in Spanish, should you-know-who pull this stem winder out.
Yup, to GFTNC’s most recent comment.
Got to say, too, in the annals of Presidential commentary, Barack Obama does a nice job too right there.
“You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.”
Not the Gettysburg Address certainly, but as literature goes, it sure beats “”There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Which is why The Who are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and George W. Bush is painting his toes in the bathtub.
It may even beat “Tear down this wall!”, since, you know, someone might have to say it again, probably in Spanish, should you-know-who pull this stem winder out.
Yup, to GFTNC’s most recent comment.
Got to say, too, in the annals of Presidential commentary, Barack Obama does a nice job too right there.
“You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.”
Not the Gettysburg Address certainly, but as literature goes, it sure beats “”There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Which is why The Who are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and George W. Bush is painting his toes in the bathtub.
It may even beat “Tear down this wall!”, since, you know, someone might have to say it again, probably in Spanish, should you-know-who pull this stem winder out.
I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps he is a prophet more appreciated abroad than in his own land. This is a range of reactions, in the Guardian, including from many of our serious writers and a recent poet laureate:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/dylan-towers-over-everyone-salman-rushdie-kate-tempest-and-more-pay-tribute-to-bob-dylan
I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps he is a prophet more appreciated abroad than in his own land. This is a range of reactions, in the Guardian, including from many of our serious writers and a recent poet laureate:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/dylan-towers-over-everyone-salman-rushdie-kate-tempest-and-more-pay-tribute-to-bob-dylan
I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps he is a prophet more appreciated abroad than in his own land. This is a range of reactions, in the Guardian, including from many of our serious writers and a recent poet laureate:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/dylan-towers-over-everyone-salman-rushdie-kate-tempest-and-more-pay-tribute-to-bob-dylan
This could be getting serious.
And Bobby Dylan, nobel laureate. What a hoot.
This could be getting serious.
And Bobby Dylan, nobel laureate. What a hoot.
This could be getting serious.
And Bobby Dylan, nobel laureate. What a hoot.
bobbyp, you remind me of the time I was visiting Israel, and I went to see Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, which had just come out. At one stage, someone asks Dylan’s character what his name is, and the whole crowd, who were reading the subtitles, shouted out “Bobby Dylan”!
bobbyp, you remind me of the time I was visiting Israel, and I went to see Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, which had just come out. At one stage, someone asks Dylan’s character what his name is, and the whole crowd, who were reading the subtitles, shouted out “Bobby Dylan”!
bobbyp, you remind me of the time I was visiting Israel, and I went to see Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, which had just come out. At one stage, someone asks Dylan’s character what his name is, and the whole crowd, who were reading the subtitles, shouted out “Bobby Dylan”!
I asked Bobby Dylan
I asked The Beatles
I asked Timothy Leary
but he couldn’t tell me, either
I asked Bobby Dylan
I asked The Beatles
I asked Timothy Leary
but he couldn’t tell me, either
I asked Bobby Dylan
I asked The Beatles
I asked Timothy Leary
but he couldn’t tell me, either
I’m going to do “Like A Rolling Stone” tonight at my karaoke joint. Hardly anyone does Dylan there.
Finally, in my time there, someone is going to pay tribute to a living legend who has been honored while they are still among the living, instead of all of a sudden EVERYONE singing “Purple Rain”, “Space Oddity”, “Desperado”, “Me and Mrs. Jones” (that’s not sung enough), and “Mama Tried” into the ground for months on end.
I’m not sure my Dylan (the classic early Dylan, not the gravel pit of a larynx his voice has become, though still moving at times) is going transfer well from the privacy of my apartment into the public sphere, plus it tends to slip into Tom Petty, and if I’m not careful, Sam Drucker from “Petticoat Junction”.
I’m going to do “Like A Rolling Stone” tonight at my karaoke joint. Hardly anyone does Dylan there.
Finally, in my time there, someone is going to pay tribute to a living legend who has been honored while they are still among the living, instead of all of a sudden EVERYONE singing “Purple Rain”, “Space Oddity”, “Desperado”, “Me and Mrs. Jones” (that’s not sung enough), and “Mama Tried” into the ground for months on end.
I’m not sure my Dylan (the classic early Dylan, not the gravel pit of a larynx his voice has become, though still moving at times) is going transfer well from the privacy of my apartment into the public sphere, plus it tends to slip into Tom Petty, and if I’m not careful, Sam Drucker from “Petticoat Junction”.
I’m going to do “Like A Rolling Stone” tonight at my karaoke joint. Hardly anyone does Dylan there.
Finally, in my time there, someone is going to pay tribute to a living legend who has been honored while they are still among the living, instead of all of a sudden EVERYONE singing “Purple Rain”, “Space Oddity”, “Desperado”, “Me and Mrs. Jones” (that’s not sung enough), and “Mama Tried” into the ground for months on end.
I’m not sure my Dylan (the classic early Dylan, not the gravel pit of a larynx his voice has become, though still moving at times) is going transfer well from the privacy of my apartment into the public sphere, plus it tends to slip into Tom Petty, and if I’m not careful, Sam Drucker from “Petticoat Junction”.
Michele Obama for President!
Michele Obama for President!
Michele Obama for President!
Rush Limbaugh, who Benjamin Franklin once mistook for a spittoon:
“You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”
That’s definitely a husk of a man who has heard the word “NO!” a couple of million times.
Roger Ailes gets hit by projectile vomiting before he even brings the subject up.
Coincidentally, you don’t have to give these guys consent before they haul off and shoot you either, but I’ll hold off on the fun/gun jokes.
Odd ducks, these f*cks.
Rush Limbaugh, who Benjamin Franklin once mistook for a spittoon:
“You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”
That’s definitely a husk of a man who has heard the word “NO!” a couple of million times.
Roger Ailes gets hit by projectile vomiting before he even brings the subject up.
Coincidentally, you don’t have to give these guys consent before they haul off and shoot you either, but I’ll hold off on the fun/gun jokes.
Odd ducks, these f*cks.
Rush Limbaugh, who Benjamin Franklin once mistook for a spittoon:
“You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”
That’s definitely a husk of a man who has heard the word “NO!” a couple of million times.
Roger Ailes gets hit by projectile vomiting before he even brings the subject up.
Coincidentally, you don’t have to give these guys consent before they haul off and shoot you either, but I’ll hold off on the fun/gun jokes.
Odd ducks, these f*cks.
There is a timeless nature to Dylan work that I’m not sure I fully appreciated when I named my son after him. He has lived up to the award, no body of written work deserves the honor more. But I tend to think of as Joan Baer sang:
I think he was both singer and savior, his words have been read and sung by millions, they helped shape the sensibilities of every generation they have touched.
I am thrilled for him.
There is a timeless nature to Dylan work that I’m not sure I fully appreciated when I named my son after him. He has lived up to the award, no body of written work deserves the honor more. But I tend to think of as Joan Baer sang:
I think he was both singer and savior, his words have been read and sung by millions, they helped shape the sensibilities of every generation they have touched.
I am thrilled for him.
There is a timeless nature to Dylan work that I’m not sure I fully appreciated when I named my son after him. He has lived up to the award, no body of written work deserves the honor more. But I tend to think of as Joan Baer sang:
I think he was both singer and savior, his words have been read and sung by millions, they helped shape the sensibilities of every generation they have touched.
I am thrilled for him.
Still my favourite Dylan story (& his Scandinavian popularity ought to have tipped me off to the Nobel likelihood…):
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/sep/29/swedish-cientists-bet-bob-dylan-lyrics-research-papers
Still my favourite Dylan story (& his Scandinavian popularity ought to have tipped me off to the Nobel likelihood…):
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/sep/29/swedish-cientists-bet-bob-dylan-lyrics-research-papers
Still my favourite Dylan story (& his Scandinavian popularity ought to have tipped me off to the Nobel likelihood…):
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/sep/29/swedish-cientists-bet-bob-dylan-lyrics-research-papers
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Well, yes – but if he reads that comment, you might suspect that next time he meets Obama he will be cheesin’ and grinnin’ just to confound expectations…
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Well, yes – but if he reads that comment, you might suspect that next time he meets Obama he will be cheesin’ and grinnin’ just to confound expectations…
That’s exactly how you want Bob Dylan…
Well, yes – but if he reads that comment, you might suspect that next time he meets Obama he will be cheesin’ and grinnin’ just to confound expectations…
Other favourite moment was when Newsnight played Positively 4th St over the closing credits, the night Gove knifed Boris Johnson for the Conservative leadership…
Other favourite moment was when Newsnight played Positively 4th St over the closing credits, the night Gove knifed Boris Johnson for the Conservative leadership…
Other favourite moment was when Newsnight played Positively 4th St over the closing credits, the night Gove knifed Boris Johnson for the Conservative leadership…
Michele Obama for President!
hell yes
Michele Obama for President!
hell yes
Michele Obama for President!
hell yes
when I named my son after him
my middle name’s ‘Dylan’.
my dad tells me it’s after Dylan Thomas but so is Bobby Z; and i’ve never seen a Dylan Thomas record in my dad’s stacks.
when I named my son after him
my middle name’s ‘Dylan’.
my dad tells me it’s after Dylan Thomas but so is Bobby Z; and i’ve never seen a Dylan Thomas record in my dad’s stacks.
when I named my son after him
my middle name’s ‘Dylan’.
my dad tells me it’s after Dylan Thomas but so is Bobby Z; and i’ve never seen a Dylan Thomas record in my dad’s stacks.
Donald (paraphrased) today:
“You can press down upon my brow the crown of senseless and irrational hate;and crucify me upon the cross erected by the secrete international bankers. It’s all about me, because I am here for you.”
Somebody needs to grab him by the b*lls and squeeze really really really hard.
Donald (paraphrased) today:
“You can press down upon my brow the crown of senseless and irrational hate;and crucify me upon the cross erected by the secrete international bankers. It’s all about me, because I am here for you.”
Somebody needs to grab him by the b*lls and squeeze really really really hard.
Donald (paraphrased) today:
“You can press down upon my brow the crown of senseless and irrational hate;and crucify me upon the cross erected by the secrete international bankers. It’s all about me, because I am here for you.”
Somebody needs to grab him by the b*lls and squeeze really really really hard.
The party of family values baby.
The party of family values baby.
The party of family values baby.
the one thing i LOVE about this election season is that i feel fully justified in never having to take seriously anything the ‘conservative’ movement says about morality and religion ever again.
i mean, i always thought they were completely hypocritical about how their deeply-held religious beliefs prevented them from selling cakes to gay people. but their embrace of the completely repulsive and reprehensible Donald Trump makes it obvious that all they care about is opposing liberalism. and religion is, in the words of Britt Daniel: just another way to be right wing.
baking a cake violates your religion? but you voted for a thrice-divorced sexual-predator racist con-man? fuck you.
the one thing i LOVE about this election season is that i feel fully justified in never having to take seriously anything the ‘conservative’ movement says about morality and religion ever again.
i mean, i always thought they were completely hypocritical about how their deeply-held religious beliefs prevented them from selling cakes to gay people. but their embrace of the completely repulsive and reprehensible Donald Trump makes it obvious that all they care about is opposing liberalism. and religion is, in the words of Britt Daniel: just another way to be right wing.
baking a cake violates your religion? but you voted for a thrice-divorced sexual-predator racist con-man? fuck you.
the one thing i LOVE about this election season is that i feel fully justified in never having to take seriously anything the ‘conservative’ movement says about morality and religion ever again.
i mean, i always thought they were completely hypocritical about how their deeply-held religious beliefs prevented them from selling cakes to gay people. but their embrace of the completely repulsive and reprehensible Donald Trump makes it obvious that all they care about is opposing liberalism. and religion is, in the words of Britt Daniel: just another way to be right wing.
baking a cake violates your religion? but you voted for a thrice-divorced sexual-predator racist con-man? fuck you.
What cleek said, in every particular.
What cleek said, in every particular.
What cleek said, in every particular.
Cleek, don’t completely lose track of that fact that, while there certainly are some very high profile hypocrits from the political religious right, they are not the whole story. There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
But if you meant just politicians who claim to embrace the religious right, rather than those who are primarily religious figures, they yes.
Cleek, don’t completely lose track of that fact that, while there certainly are some very high profile hypocrits from the political religious right, they are not the whole story. There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
But if you meant just politicians who claim to embrace the religious right, rather than those who are primarily religious figures, they yes.
Cleek, don’t completely lose track of that fact that, while there certainly are some very high profile hypocrits from the political religious right, they are not the whole story. There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
But if you meant just politicians who claim to embrace the religious right, rather than those who are primarily religious figures, they yes.
There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
indeed, it’s great to see those people stepping up. and good for the Liberty U students!
but there will be many many millions of evangelical ‘conservatives’ voting for Trump. he still has 2/3s of white evangelicals (v 16% for Clinton).
so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites.
There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
indeed, it’s great to see those people stepping up. and good for the Liberty U students!
but there will be many many millions of evangelical ‘conservatives’ voting for Trump. he still has 2/3s of white evangelicals (v 16% for Clinton).
so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites.
There are also some pretty prominent members of the religious right who are protesting both those supporting Trump and Trump himself.
indeed, it’s great to see those people stepping up. and good for the Liberty U students!
but there will be many many millions of evangelical ‘conservatives’ voting for Trump. he still has 2/3s of white evangelicals (v 16% for Clinton).
so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites.
“so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites. ”
This I am tired of. You keep harping about a vote for anyone other than ClinTrump is wasted. So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person. There isn’t a good one to vote for, then you call them hypocrites for picking the one that matches the rest of their values.
Let’s choose between the one who is an ass and a misogynist or the partner in crime of an ass and a misogynist, who helped him trash his victims.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
“so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites. ”
This I am tired of. You keep harping about a vote for anyone other than ClinTrump is wasted. So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person. There isn’t a good one to vote for, then you call them hypocrites for picking the one that matches the rest of their values.
Let’s choose between the one who is an ass and a misogynist or the partner in crime of an ass and a misogynist, who helped him trash his victims.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
“so… while i’m happy for the exceptions, the majority of them are deplorable hypocrites. ”
This I am tired of. You keep harping about a vote for anyone other than ClinTrump is wasted. So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person. There isn’t a good one to vote for, then you call them hypocrites for picking the one that matches the rest of their values.
Let’s choose between the one who is an ass and a misogynist or the partner in crime of an ass and a misogynist, who helped him trash his victims.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump. There’s zero chance Hillary is going to nominate anti-choice judge to SCOTUS and she is not going to implement any anti-choice regulations.
With Trump there’s at least a possibility of those things happening. I suppose to the extent that Trump would sign any legislation Ryan/McConnell put in front of him there are reasons to vote for Trump too that could fall in the so-called “family values” category.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump. There’s zero chance Hillary is going to nominate anti-choice judge to SCOTUS and she is not going to implement any anti-choice regulations.
With Trump there’s at least a possibility of those things happening. I suppose to the extent that Trump would sign any legislation Ryan/McConnell put in front of him there are reasons to vote for Trump too that could fall in the so-called “family values” category.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump. There’s zero chance Hillary is going to nominate anti-choice judge to SCOTUS and she is not going to implement any anti-choice regulations.
With Trump there’s at least a possibility of those things happening. I suppose to the extent that Trump would sign any legislation Ryan/McConnell put in front of him there are reasons to vote for Trump too that could fall in the so-called “family values” category.
And then there’s this in Utah from the Deseret News, which is owned by the Mormon Church. The church has stayed out of presidential politics for 80 years. But the editorial board urged all of its readers over the weekend not to vote for Trump.
They are explicitly not endorsing Clinton. But it really doesn’t matter whether their readers go for her, or McMullin, or Johnson. It’s a nuclear meltdown for the GOP if their candidate loses Utah. (And worse if, as seems increasingly likely, he doesn’t even manage to finish second.)
And then there’s this in Utah from the Deseret News, which is owned by the Mormon Church. The church has stayed out of presidential politics for 80 years. But the editorial board urged all of its readers over the weekend not to vote for Trump.
They are explicitly not endorsing Clinton. But it really doesn’t matter whether their readers go for her, or McMullin, or Johnson. It’s a nuclear meltdown for the GOP if their candidate loses Utah. (And worse if, as seems increasingly likely, he doesn’t even manage to finish second.)
And then there’s this in Utah from the Deseret News, which is owned by the Mormon Church. The church has stayed out of presidential politics for 80 years. But the editorial board urged all of its readers over the weekend not to vote for Trump.
They are explicitly not endorsing Clinton. But it really doesn’t matter whether their readers go for her, or McMullin, or Johnson. It’s a nuclear meltdown for the GOP if their candidate loses Utah. (And worse if, as seems increasingly likely, he doesn’t even manage to finish second.)
So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person.
now this i am tired of.
this stupid equivalency thing you keep trying to pull is utter bullshit.
did Hillary Clinton tell anyone her power and celebrity entitles her to walk up to strange men, grab their cocks, and make them do whatever she wants? no.
is she a serial adulterer, an admitted sexual predator? no.
is there any hint anywhere that she might be a pedophile? no.
did she ever publicly lust after her daughter? no.
did she ever joke with Howard Stern about how sexy her daughter is? no.
does she have a long and well documented history of ripping-off people who work for her? no.
does she speak in the language of decades-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? no.
does she call black people “lazy”? no.
does she use a sock puppet when giving interviews to journalists in which she then talks about how great the real Hillary Clinton is? no.
so you go ahead and vote for whoever the hell you want to, Marty. but I am going to do what i can to keep that putrid son of a bitch Trump out of power. that is the only thing that matters this time around.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
says Marty, looking down his nose.
So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person.
now this i am tired of.
this stupid equivalency thing you keep trying to pull is utter bullshit.
did Hillary Clinton tell anyone her power and celebrity entitles her to walk up to strange men, grab their cocks, and make them do whatever she wants? no.
is she a serial adulterer, an admitted sexual predator? no.
is there any hint anywhere that she might be a pedophile? no.
did she ever publicly lust after her daughter? no.
did she ever joke with Howard Stern about how sexy her daughter is? no.
does she have a long and well documented history of ripping-off people who work for her? no.
does she speak in the language of decades-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? no.
does she call black people “lazy”? no.
does she use a sock puppet when giving interviews to journalists in which she then talks about how great the real Hillary Clinton is? no.
so you go ahead and vote for whoever the hell you want to, Marty. but I am going to do what i can to keep that putrid son of a bitch Trump out of power. that is the only thing that matters this time around.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
says Marty, looking down his nose.
So they are all convinced that they have to vote for one or the other unredeemably bad person.
now this i am tired of.
this stupid equivalency thing you keep trying to pull is utter bullshit.
did Hillary Clinton tell anyone her power and celebrity entitles her to walk up to strange men, grab their cocks, and make them do whatever she wants? no.
is she a serial adulterer, an admitted sexual predator? no.
is there any hint anywhere that she might be a pedophile? no.
did she ever publicly lust after her daughter? no.
did she ever joke with Howard Stern about how sexy her daughter is? no.
does she have a long and well documented history of ripping-off people who work for her? no.
does she speak in the language of decades-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories? no.
does she call black people “lazy”? no.
does she use a sock puppet when giving interviews to journalists in which she then talks about how great the real Hillary Clinton is? no.
so you go ahead and vote for whoever the hell you want to, Marty. but I am going to do what i can to keep that putrid son of a bitch Trump out of power. that is the only thing that matters this time around.
Maybe you should get off your high horse.
says Marty, looking down his nose.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump.
Trump can’t even hold a position on abortion for more than a few hours at a time.
i’m sure there are single-issue anti-abortion voters out there. dozens, maybe. but Trump will get tens of millions of votes. and i don’t find selective piety (h/t) very persuasive.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump.
Trump can’t even hold a position on abortion for more than a few hours at a time.
i’m sure there are single-issue anti-abortion voters out there. dozens, maybe. but Trump will get tens of millions of votes. and i don’t find selective piety (h/t) very persuasive.
To the extent “family values” is shorthand for “anti-abortion” and to the extent that issue outweighs all others, I can see how they would vote for Trump.
Trump can’t even hold a position on abortion for more than a few hours at a time.
i’m sure there are single-issue anti-abortion voters out there. dozens, maybe. but Trump will get tens of millions of votes. and i don’t find selective piety (h/t) very persuasive.
What cleek said, again, to which I would add:
Did she call Marlee Matlin “retarded” (according to sources on The Apprentice), or in fact do anything of the sort ever about anybody disabled?
What cleek said, again, to which I would add:
Did she call Marlee Matlin “retarded” (according to sources on The Apprentice), or in fact do anything of the sort ever about anybody disabled?
What cleek said, again, to which I would add:
Did she call Marlee Matlin “retarded” (according to sources on The Apprentice), or in fact do anything of the sort ever about anybody disabled?
Hell, Trump doesn’t even trust himself.
Hell, Trump doesn’t even trust himself.
Hell, Trump doesn’t even trust himself.
Oh I agree Trump can’t hold a consistent position on abortion or really much of anything (other than how great he and his brand are – they’re always uber awesome!).
But if you’re a so-called (and horribly misnamed and misleading) “family values” voter that has traditionally voted GOP, you’re guaranteed not to get what you want if you vote Clinton, whereas Trump leaves open the possibility. I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
Of course, for some reason they seem to have the need to act as if Trump personally fits the mold of a supposedly “family-values” candidate, which is laughable, as it always has been (hell Reagan had a divorce under his belt and had crowed about being a Hollywood womanizer in his time).
Oh I agree Trump can’t hold a consistent position on abortion or really much of anything (other than how great he and his brand are – they’re always uber awesome!).
But if you’re a so-called (and horribly misnamed and misleading) “family values” voter that has traditionally voted GOP, you’re guaranteed not to get what you want if you vote Clinton, whereas Trump leaves open the possibility. I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
Of course, for some reason they seem to have the need to act as if Trump personally fits the mold of a supposedly “family-values” candidate, which is laughable, as it always has been (hell Reagan had a divorce under his belt and had crowed about being a Hollywood womanizer in his time).
Oh I agree Trump can’t hold a consistent position on abortion or really much of anything (other than how great he and his brand are – they’re always uber awesome!).
But if you’re a so-called (and horribly misnamed and misleading) “family values” voter that has traditionally voted GOP, you’re guaranteed not to get what you want if you vote Clinton, whereas Trump leaves open the possibility. I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
Of course, for some reason they seem to have the need to act as if Trump personally fits the mold of a supposedly “family-values” candidate, which is laughable, as it always has been (hell Reagan had a divorce under his belt and had crowed about being a Hollywood womanizer in his time).
Marty thinks Clinton is equally awful because he believes things that may or not be true about Clinton, if in addition to some things that are known to be true. Far fewer of Trump’s negatives are in serious dispute.
If you believe all, or even most, of the things Clinton’s been accused of, you’re going to think she’s a terrible person. Once you’ve come to believe those things, it’s very hard to be convinced that they aren’t true.
Fortunately, she’s going to win in a landslide, so there’s no need to waste time trying to convince Clinton haters that she isn’t remotely as bad as Trump.
Marty thinks Clinton is equally awful because he believes things that may or not be true about Clinton, if in addition to some things that are known to be true. Far fewer of Trump’s negatives are in serious dispute.
If you believe all, or even most, of the things Clinton’s been accused of, you’re going to think she’s a terrible person. Once you’ve come to believe those things, it’s very hard to be convinced that they aren’t true.
Fortunately, she’s going to win in a landslide, so there’s no need to waste time trying to convince Clinton haters that she isn’t remotely as bad as Trump.
Marty thinks Clinton is equally awful because he believes things that may or not be true about Clinton, if in addition to some things that are known to be true. Far fewer of Trump’s negatives are in serious dispute.
If you believe all, or even most, of the things Clinton’s been accused of, you’re going to think she’s a terrible person. Once you’ve come to believe those things, it’s very hard to be convinced that they aren’t true.
Fortunately, she’s going to win in a landslide, so there’s no need to waste time trying to convince Clinton haters that she isn’t remotely as bad as Trump.
Uh, it’s too late guys, you own him!
Uh, it’s too late guys, you own him!
Uh, it’s too late guys, you own him!
Oh, no! I spoke too soon! (The link is to Newsmax in case anyone doesn’t want to give them any hits.)
Oh, no! I spoke too soon! (The link is to Newsmax in case anyone doesn’t want to give them any hits.)
Oh, no! I spoke too soon! (The link is to Newsmax in case anyone doesn’t want to give them any hits.)
I suspect Trump owns a high end abortion clinic or two, the kind that will always exist regardless of what happens to Roe/Wade and that well-off conservative evangelical preachers will use as a last resort for their daughters and girlfriends, whichever ones they have impregnated.
Give it a week; it will come to the fore.
The clinic is attached to Trump’s own private petting zoo with private make-out booths and bidets.
Scantily-clad youths of uncertain gender serve roofies to the waiting mothers, slipping them into the umbrella drinks.
Trump fires them at will, usually for all of a sudden becoming ugly after they’ve accused him of stiffing them on their tips.
See, all of this dick-gazing is beside the point.
The truly dangerous disgrace that is Trump and his filthy conservative and alt-right base is how they are doing their malevolent worst to utterly de-legitimize a Presidential election (see the conspiracy theories now being floated by vermin ilk about shadowy foreign Jewish, Mexican, inner city blacks with international banking interests financing the whole kaboodle and taking the entire Republican 40-year enterprise of de-legitimizing all governmental institutions, now the elections themselves, to its logical bloody end while simultaneously trying to keep minorities (who, we’d better remember, are f&cking armed too, you fools) away from the polls.
You know what happens in too many other countries when one side of the political spectrum behaves that way and enthuses their base about causing a country to be ungovernable?
Blood in the streets. Wholesale murder. Martial law. Human being killing each other.
You don’t think Lebanon or Syria or Chile or Egypt can happen here?
Dicks ARE the problem, but not like we think.
I suspect Trump owns a high end abortion clinic or two, the kind that will always exist regardless of what happens to Roe/Wade and that well-off conservative evangelical preachers will use as a last resort for their daughters and girlfriends, whichever ones they have impregnated.
Give it a week; it will come to the fore.
The clinic is attached to Trump’s own private petting zoo with private make-out booths and bidets.
Scantily-clad youths of uncertain gender serve roofies to the waiting mothers, slipping them into the umbrella drinks.
Trump fires them at will, usually for all of a sudden becoming ugly after they’ve accused him of stiffing them on their tips.
See, all of this dick-gazing is beside the point.
The truly dangerous disgrace that is Trump and his filthy conservative and alt-right base is how they are doing their malevolent worst to utterly de-legitimize a Presidential election (see the conspiracy theories now being floated by vermin ilk about shadowy foreign Jewish, Mexican, inner city blacks with international banking interests financing the whole kaboodle and taking the entire Republican 40-year enterprise of de-legitimizing all governmental institutions, now the elections themselves, to its logical bloody end while simultaneously trying to keep minorities (who, we’d better remember, are f&cking armed too, you fools) away from the polls.
You know what happens in too many other countries when one side of the political spectrum behaves that way and enthuses their base about causing a country to be ungovernable?
Blood in the streets. Wholesale murder. Martial law. Human being killing each other.
You don’t think Lebanon or Syria or Chile or Egypt can happen here?
Dicks ARE the problem, but not like we think.
I suspect Trump owns a high end abortion clinic or two, the kind that will always exist regardless of what happens to Roe/Wade and that well-off conservative evangelical preachers will use as a last resort for their daughters and girlfriends, whichever ones they have impregnated.
Give it a week; it will come to the fore.
The clinic is attached to Trump’s own private petting zoo with private make-out booths and bidets.
Scantily-clad youths of uncertain gender serve roofies to the waiting mothers, slipping them into the umbrella drinks.
Trump fires them at will, usually for all of a sudden becoming ugly after they’ve accused him of stiffing them on their tips.
See, all of this dick-gazing is beside the point.
The truly dangerous disgrace that is Trump and his filthy conservative and alt-right base is how they are doing their malevolent worst to utterly de-legitimize a Presidential election (see the conspiracy theories now being floated by vermin ilk about shadowy foreign Jewish, Mexican, inner city blacks with international banking interests financing the whole kaboodle and taking the entire Republican 40-year enterprise of de-legitimizing all governmental institutions, now the elections themselves, to its logical bloody end while simultaneously trying to keep minorities (who, we’d better remember, are f&cking armed too, you fools) away from the polls.
You know what happens in too many other countries when one side of the political spectrum behaves that way and enthuses their base about causing a country to be ungovernable?
Blood in the streets. Wholesale murder. Martial law. Human being killing each other.
You don’t think Lebanon or Syria or Chile or Egypt can happen here?
Dicks ARE the problem, but not like we think.
I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
yep.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
yep.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
I suppose you could say they’re voting the party not the person.
yep.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
These scum even think Paul Ryan is working with the above-listed interests to foil their malevolence.
Sorry, I don’t want him on my side.
But do mainstream Republicans understand the mortal danger you are in from these armed right-wing filth now that Trump has enlisted them against you?
I’m glad you have your firearms. You may have to use them on someone other than who you expected to use them on.
Will Trump give a concession speech? I don’t know, it’s hard to suss. One that his ravenous, bloody, howling hordes are going to accept?
Given his ravings about jailing Hillary Clinton if elected (very Putin, Assad, Saddam, Mussolini that utterance), I doubt he will concede … ever.
And that places American history in uncharted waters. On an unprecedented course toward chaos and bloody mayhem.
Shaman Gary Johnson won’t be anywhere to be found.
These scum even think Paul Ryan is working with the above-listed interests to foil their malevolence.
Sorry, I don’t want him on my side.
But do mainstream Republicans understand the mortal danger you are in from these armed right-wing filth now that Trump has enlisted them against you?
I’m glad you have your firearms. You may have to use them on someone other than who you expected to use them on.
Will Trump give a concession speech? I don’t know, it’s hard to suss. One that his ravenous, bloody, howling hordes are going to accept?
Given his ravings about jailing Hillary Clinton if elected (very Putin, Assad, Saddam, Mussolini that utterance), I doubt he will concede … ever.
And that places American history in uncharted waters. On an unprecedented course toward chaos and bloody mayhem.
Shaman Gary Johnson won’t be anywhere to be found.
These scum even think Paul Ryan is working with the above-listed interests to foil their malevolence.
Sorry, I don’t want him on my side.
But do mainstream Republicans understand the mortal danger you are in from these armed right-wing filth now that Trump has enlisted them against you?
I’m glad you have your firearms. You may have to use them on someone other than who you expected to use them on.
Will Trump give a concession speech? I don’t know, it’s hard to suss. One that his ravenous, bloody, howling hordes are going to accept?
Given his ravings about jailing Hillary Clinton if elected (very Putin, Assad, Saddam, Mussolini that utterance), I doubt he will concede … ever.
And that places American history in uncharted waters. On an unprecedented course toward chaos and bloody mayhem.
Shaman Gary Johnson won’t be anywhere to be found.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours? Because it sounds a lot like you’re trying very, very hard to have it both ways: ideological purity is ridiculous and you must cast it aside in favor of pragmatism if pragmatism would mean voting for your preferred candidate – indeed, it’s immoral to support someone who actually embodies our values if it means failing to provide support for a flawed major-party candidate who repudiates some of our values, even core ones – but it’s immoral and hypocritical to reject ideological purity in favor of pragmatism if that would mean supporting your preferred candidate’s major-party rival…
Marty really is exactly right on this. You can’t have it both ways unless you’re willing to embrace the partisan hypocrisy of the stance you’ve espoused on third-party voting.
I don’t disagree with your statement that many, many conservatives care more about opposing “the other team” than they do about their professed values. It’s not really credible for you, however, to denounce this from the moral high ground you’ve staked out for yourself after this electoral cycle. The conservatives you’re denouncing are, yes, tribalists with more concern for team politics than principles… but you haven’t exactly conducted yourself in a manner that suggested you found that objectionable until doing so gave you a vast swathe of acceptable targets towards whom you would have no obligations to behave civilly. Rules for thee, etc. etc. etc.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours? Because it sounds a lot like you’re trying very, very hard to have it both ways: ideological purity is ridiculous and you must cast it aside in favor of pragmatism if pragmatism would mean voting for your preferred candidate – indeed, it’s immoral to support someone who actually embodies our values if it means failing to provide support for a flawed major-party candidate who repudiates some of our values, even core ones – but it’s immoral and hypocritical to reject ideological purity in favor of pragmatism if that would mean supporting your preferred candidate’s major-party rival…
Marty really is exactly right on this. You can’t have it both ways unless you’re willing to embrace the partisan hypocrisy of the stance you’ve espoused on third-party voting.
I don’t disagree with your statement that many, many conservatives care more about opposing “the other team” than they do about their professed values. It’s not really credible for you, however, to denounce this from the moral high ground you’ve staked out for yourself after this electoral cycle. The conservatives you’re denouncing are, yes, tribalists with more concern for team politics than principles… but you haven’t exactly conducted yourself in a manner that suggested you found that objectionable until doing so gave you a vast swathe of acceptable targets towards whom you would have no obligations to behave civilly. Rules for thee, etc. etc. etc.
and that person is vile – really, off the charts vile. and they know it. and still, they’re going to vote to put a vile person into office.
so, they can stuff their moralizing. i never want to hear it again.
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours? Because it sounds a lot like you’re trying very, very hard to have it both ways: ideological purity is ridiculous and you must cast it aside in favor of pragmatism if pragmatism would mean voting for your preferred candidate – indeed, it’s immoral to support someone who actually embodies our values if it means failing to provide support for a flawed major-party candidate who repudiates some of our values, even core ones – but it’s immoral and hypocritical to reject ideological purity in favor of pragmatism if that would mean supporting your preferred candidate’s major-party rival…
Marty really is exactly right on this. You can’t have it both ways unless you’re willing to embrace the partisan hypocrisy of the stance you’ve espoused on third-party voting.
I don’t disagree with your statement that many, many conservatives care more about opposing “the other team” than they do about their professed values. It’s not really credible for you, however, to denounce this from the moral high ground you’ve staked out for yourself after this electoral cycle. The conservatives you’re denouncing are, yes, tribalists with more concern for team politics than principles… but you haven’t exactly conducted yourself in a manner that suggested you found that objectionable until doing so gave you a vast swathe of acceptable targets towards whom you would have no obligations to behave civilly. Rules for thee, etc. etc. etc.
tl;dr: you can’t advocate strategic voting while simultaneously arguing that voting for someone means embracing all of their policies and values… unless you have no problem with hypocrisy. (And those last couple of comments make it pretty clear you have a problem with hypocrisy, so…)
tl;dr: you can’t advocate strategic voting while simultaneously arguing that voting for someone means embracing all of their policies and values… unless you have no problem with hypocrisy. (And those last couple of comments make it pretty clear you have a problem with hypocrisy, so…)
tl;dr: you can’t advocate strategic voting while simultaneously arguing that voting for someone means embracing all of their policies and values… unless you have no problem with hypocrisy. (And those last couple of comments make it pretty clear you have a problem with hypocrisy, so…)
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours?
I don’t know that cleek has ever made this as a general proposition, rather one that would apply very much to this particular election, where the alternative is Donald Trump.
I also don’t think cleek’s “moralizing” is of the same kind as the religious right’s, of which a significant number of members are supporting someone who behaves in a manner that is the very opposite of what they profess to believe in.
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours?
I don’t know that cleek has ever made this as a general proposition, rather one that would apply very much to this particular election, where the alternative is Donald Trump.
I also don’t think cleek’s “moralizing” is of the same kind as the religious right’s, of which a significant number of members are supporting someone who behaves in a manner that is the very opposite of what they profess to believe in.
Does this mean we can look forward to you stuffing your moralizing about how “ideological purity” is pompous posturing and one simply must vote for the major-party who professes they will implement the policies closest to yours?
I don’t know that cleek has ever made this as a general proposition, rather one that would apply very much to this particular election, where the alternative is Donald Trump.
I also don’t think cleek’s “moralizing” is of the same kind as the religious right’s, of which a significant number of members are supporting someone who behaves in a manner that is the very opposite of what they profess to believe in.
Geez, who did you NOT assault Donald?
Geez, who did you NOT assault Donald?
Geez, who did you NOT assault Donald?
NV,
I was one of those stoned hippies who helped run LBJ into retirement. As loathsome as he was on the war, HHH was a pretty decent guy otherwise. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat as opposed to the really despicable Nixon (I was a year too young to vote at the time).
There’s no way this could ever have happened, but what if the Dems had nominated George Wallace in ’72? This would have crossed whatever pragmatic moral lines I may draw from time to time, so I don’t see any way I could have supported the Dem national ticket under those circumstances.
But in both those cases, we are evaluating intraparty policy differences.
Trump is a whole ‘nother pile of human waste.
I’m with cleek here. To be a self-identified ‘values voter’ and support Trump is to essentially mock those values.
From a political viewpoint I understand their loyalty. After all, the Supreme Court majority may hinge on this election.
But the rationalizations? Not so much.
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
But it hasn’t. That’s the real tragedy here.
NV,
I was one of those stoned hippies who helped run LBJ into retirement. As loathsome as he was on the war, HHH was a pretty decent guy otherwise. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat as opposed to the really despicable Nixon (I was a year too young to vote at the time).
There’s no way this could ever have happened, but what if the Dems had nominated George Wallace in ’72? This would have crossed whatever pragmatic moral lines I may draw from time to time, so I don’t see any way I could have supported the Dem national ticket under those circumstances.
But in both those cases, we are evaluating intraparty policy differences.
Trump is a whole ‘nother pile of human waste.
I’m with cleek here. To be a self-identified ‘values voter’ and support Trump is to essentially mock those values.
From a political viewpoint I understand their loyalty. After all, the Supreme Court majority may hinge on this election.
But the rationalizations? Not so much.
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
But it hasn’t. That’s the real tragedy here.
NV,
I was one of those stoned hippies who helped run LBJ into retirement. As loathsome as he was on the war, HHH was a pretty decent guy otherwise. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat as opposed to the really despicable Nixon (I was a year too young to vote at the time).
There’s no way this could ever have happened, but what if the Dems had nominated George Wallace in ’72? This would have crossed whatever pragmatic moral lines I may draw from time to time, so I don’t see any way I could have supported the Dem national ticket under those circumstances.
But in both those cases, we are evaluating intraparty policy differences.
Trump is a whole ‘nother pile of human waste.
I’m with cleek here. To be a self-identified ‘values voter’ and support Trump is to essentially mock those values.
From a political viewpoint I understand their loyalty. After all, the Supreme Court majority may hinge on this election.
But the rationalizations? Not so much.
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
But it hasn’t. That’s the real tragedy here.
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
Trump is not a typical ideologically imperfect candidate; he isn’t just wrong on an issue or two. we’re not talking about being wrong on taxes or trade or whatever. he boastfully violates the fundamental tenets of all major religions. more importantly, he’s practically a living embodiment of the religious right’s caricature of everything that’s wrong with modern society.
this isn’t a policy matter. this is a religious matter.
now, i don’t actually care about religion. but we’ve all been told by the religious right, over and over, that their religion is so very important to them that the laws which govern all of us should enforce their religion; it should let them discriminate against other law-abiding citizens; that anyone who violates their religion’s rules cannot be allowed to win an election, or become a judge; that their god has to be acknowledged on our money and at the start of government meetings. and some of these people even tell us that the sins which Donald Trump proudly embodies are to blame for natural disasters that affect our country, or that those sins make the nation an affront to their god!
it must be very important to them! fundamental, even.
and they’re sending their money to Trump. and they’re voting for Trump. and they’re apologizing for and obfuscating, and papering-over the myriad ways he’s violated so many the things that we’ve been told are fundamentally important to them.
so it turns out that all of these sins (literal sins) that he’s known for suddenly aren’t disqualifying anymore! this is big news! someone should tell all the people who have been shamed out of office by-, or blocked from office by-, or persecuted by the religious right about this sudden change in theology!
well, i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was. i believe they are Republicans first and foremost. or, that’s the way they act, so i’ll just know them by their actions.
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
Trump is not a typical ideologically imperfect candidate; he isn’t just wrong on an issue or two. we’re not talking about being wrong on taxes or trade or whatever. he boastfully violates the fundamental tenets of all major religions. more importantly, he’s practically a living embodiment of the religious right’s caricature of everything that’s wrong with modern society.
this isn’t a policy matter. this is a religious matter.
now, i don’t actually care about religion. but we’ve all been told by the religious right, over and over, that their religion is so very important to them that the laws which govern all of us should enforce their religion; it should let them discriminate against other law-abiding citizens; that anyone who violates their religion’s rules cannot be allowed to win an election, or become a judge; that their god has to be acknowledged on our money and at the start of government meetings. and some of these people even tell us that the sins which Donald Trump proudly embodies are to blame for natural disasters that affect our country, or that those sins make the nation an affront to their god!
it must be very important to them! fundamental, even.
and they’re sending their money to Trump. and they’re voting for Trump. and they’re apologizing for and obfuscating, and papering-over the myriad ways he’s violated so many the things that we’ve been told are fundamentally important to them.
so it turns out that all of these sins (literal sins) that he’s known for suddenly aren’t disqualifying anymore! this is big news! someone should tell all the people who have been shamed out of office by-, or blocked from office by-, or persecuted by the religious right about this sudden change in theology!
well, i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was. i believe they are Republicans first and foremost. or, that’s the way they act, so i’ll just know them by their actions.
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
Trump is not a typical ideologically imperfect candidate; he isn’t just wrong on an issue or two. we’re not talking about being wrong on taxes or trade or whatever. he boastfully violates the fundamental tenets of all major religions. more importantly, he’s practically a living embodiment of the religious right’s caricature of everything that’s wrong with modern society.
this isn’t a policy matter. this is a religious matter.
now, i don’t actually care about religion. but we’ve all been told by the religious right, over and over, that their religion is so very important to them that the laws which govern all of us should enforce their religion; it should let them discriminate against other law-abiding citizens; that anyone who violates their religion’s rules cannot be allowed to win an election, or become a judge; that their god has to be acknowledged on our money and at the start of government meetings. and some of these people even tell us that the sins which Donald Trump proudly embodies are to blame for natural disasters that affect our country, or that those sins make the nation an affront to their god!
it must be very important to them! fundamental, even.
and they’re sending their money to Trump. and they’re voting for Trump. and they’re apologizing for and obfuscating, and papering-over the myriad ways he’s violated so many the things that we’ve been told are fundamentally important to them.
so it turns out that all of these sins (literal sins) that he’s known for suddenly aren’t disqualifying anymore! this is big news! someone should tell all the people who have been shamed out of office by-, or blocked from office by-, or persecuted by the religious right about this sudden change in theology!
well, i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was. i believe they are Republicans first and foremost. or, that’s the way they act, so i’ll just know them by their actions.
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
Trump, as an issue, should have torn the GOP apart, much like Viet Nam and civil rights did to the Dems.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
I’ve read conservative commenterswho dislike Trump and support him on lesser evil grounds. From their perspective it makes sense. I don’t agree, in case that needs to be said.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia. Trump of course could blunder into war with Luxembourg or anyone, but they think he is less of a neocon. I don’t agree that he is less dangerous, because he is so obviously unpredictable, but can understand and to some extent share their distrust of Clinton’s judgment.
Here is a non Trump supporting anti Putin Russian making part of that last point.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-11/i-m-an-anti-putin-russian-and-clinton-makes-me-nervous
I’ve read conservative commenterswho dislike Trump and support him on lesser evil grounds. From their perspective it makes sense. I don’t agree, in case that needs to be said.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia. Trump of course could blunder into war with Luxembourg or anyone, but they think he is less of a neocon. I don’t agree that he is less dangerous, because he is so obviously unpredictable, but can understand and to some extent share their distrust of Clinton’s judgment.
Here is a non Trump supporting anti Putin Russian making part of that last point.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-11/i-m-an-anti-putin-russian-and-clinton-makes-me-nervous
I’ve read conservative commenterswho dislike Trump and support him on lesser evil grounds. From their perspective it makes sense. I don’t agree, in case that needs to be said.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia. Trump of course could blunder into war with Luxembourg or anyone, but they think he is less of a neocon. I don’t agree that he is less dangerous, because he is so obviously unpredictable, but can understand and to some extent share their distrust of Clinton’s judgment.
Here is a non Trump supporting anti Putin Russian making part of that last point.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-11/i-m-an-anti-putin-russian-and-clinton-makes-me-nervous
Btw, when I say from their perspective it makes sense, I mean that I could give their position in a way I think they would say is fair to their beliefs. It involves a belief that though Trump is a heathen, he would pose less of a threat to their moral values in the court choices he would make, in the regulations he would propose and so on. These people tend not to believe in man caused global warming, so the thing that I consider the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads ( aside from a new Cold War with Russia that could go hot) is something that doesn’t register with them. But in policy terms I have heard it said we are mostly all denialists. That’s true of me. Anyway, that’s off topic. The point is some conservatives are well aware of Trump’s disgusting behavior and support him on lesser evil grounds. I can understand– I just think they are wrong.
Btw, when I say from their perspective it makes sense, I mean that I could give their position in a way I think they would say is fair to their beliefs. It involves a belief that though Trump is a heathen, he would pose less of a threat to their moral values in the court choices he would make, in the regulations he would propose and so on. These people tend not to believe in man caused global warming, so the thing that I consider the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads ( aside from a new Cold War with Russia that could go hot) is something that doesn’t register with them. But in policy terms I have heard it said we are mostly all denialists. That’s true of me. Anyway, that’s off topic. The point is some conservatives are well aware of Trump’s disgusting behavior and support him on lesser evil grounds. I can understand– I just think they are wrong.
Btw, when I say from their perspective it makes sense, I mean that I could give their position in a way I think they would say is fair to their beliefs. It involves a belief that though Trump is a heathen, he would pose less of a threat to their moral values in the court choices he would make, in the regulations he would propose and so on. These people tend not to believe in man caused global warming, so the thing that I consider the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads ( aside from a new Cold War with Russia that could go hot) is something that doesn’t register with them. But in policy terms I have heard it said we are mostly all denialists. That’s true of me. Anyway, that’s off topic. The point is some conservatives are well aware of Trump’s disgusting behavior and support him on lesser evil grounds. I can understand– I just think they are wrong.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia.
i worry about that, too. not because of Clinton per se, but because Russia seems to be trying to test the boundaries of what we’ll tolerate. which is the kind of thing that could lead to them finding out.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia.
i worry about that, too. not because of Clinton per se, but because Russia seems to be trying to test the boundaries of what we’ll tolerate. which is the kind of thing that could lead to them finding out.
And some worry Clinton will blunder into war with Russia.
i worry about that, too. not because of Clinton per se, but because Russia seems to be trying to test the boundaries of what we’ll tolerate. which is the kind of thing that could lead to them finding out.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
that’s why I’m long on popcorn futures.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
that’s why I’m long on popcorn futures.
We still have 25 days until the election…. 🙂
that’s why I’m long on popcorn futures.
Assault, or the threat of deadly violence, is the Republican Trump movement’s middle name (latest count of these filth; 39.5% of the electorate)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-headlock-protester-greensboro
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-armed-protest-dem
In the first instance, an anonymous male, of uncertain ethnic and racial origin, but most assuredly a Trump Republican, probably armed with deadly force, given their predilections and family sociopathies, is chasing and rushing full speed at the protestor and assaulting him.
Given Republican rules in such situations, if the protestor was armed with deadly force as well, wouldn’t the natural, law-abiding reaction be to turn and shoot that Trump f*ck in the face, or if not armed, do as much physical damage to the attacker as possible.
We see it every week in other situations. Why not OK here? Self-defense.
In the second instance, those two armed hopeless romantics are deliberately showing their weaponry to intimidate unarmed folks in a political venue, not unlike Trump vermin stalking Clinton from behind at the second debate.
What are we supposed to do, call in Jane Goodall to give us an academic primer on goddamned alpha Republican primate dominance, or test their pussy fortitude by throwing creampies in their faces and running behind the shrubbery.
Or do we assume, since we don’t know them or their ultimate motivations, like George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin didn’t know each other, that personal safety is first and foremost and take it to them physically to ward off being shot for just standing there?
I mean, if Republicans want us to live this way in the public space, then by all means, let’s live their vision of pigf*ck America to its fullest threatening extent.
Let’s go. C’mon.
Assault, or the threat of deadly violence, is the Republican Trump movement’s middle name (latest count of these filth; 39.5% of the electorate)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-headlock-protester-greensboro
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-armed-protest-dem
In the first instance, an anonymous male, of uncertain ethnic and racial origin, but most assuredly a Trump Republican, probably armed with deadly force, given their predilections and family sociopathies, is chasing and rushing full speed at the protestor and assaulting him.
Given Republican rules in such situations, if the protestor was armed with deadly force as well, wouldn’t the natural, law-abiding reaction be to turn and shoot that Trump f*ck in the face, or if not armed, do as much physical damage to the attacker as possible.
We see it every week in other situations. Why not OK here? Self-defense.
In the second instance, those two armed hopeless romantics are deliberately showing their weaponry to intimidate unarmed folks in a political venue, not unlike Trump vermin stalking Clinton from behind at the second debate.
What are we supposed to do, call in Jane Goodall to give us an academic primer on goddamned alpha Republican primate dominance, or test their pussy fortitude by throwing creampies in their faces and running behind the shrubbery.
Or do we assume, since we don’t know them or their ultimate motivations, like George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin didn’t know each other, that personal safety is first and foremost and take it to them physically to ward off being shot for just standing there?
I mean, if Republicans want us to live this way in the public space, then by all means, let’s live their vision of pigf*ck America to its fullest threatening extent.
Let’s go. C’mon.
Assault, or the threat of deadly violence, is the Republican Trump movement’s middle name (latest count of these filth; 39.5% of the electorate)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-headlock-protester-greensboro
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporter-armed-protest-dem
In the first instance, an anonymous male, of uncertain ethnic and racial origin, but most assuredly a Trump Republican, probably armed with deadly force, given their predilections and family sociopathies, is chasing and rushing full speed at the protestor and assaulting him.
Given Republican rules in such situations, if the protestor was armed with deadly force as well, wouldn’t the natural, law-abiding reaction be to turn and shoot that Trump f*ck in the face, or if not armed, do as much physical damage to the attacker as possible.
We see it every week in other situations. Why not OK here? Self-defense.
In the second instance, those two armed hopeless romantics are deliberately showing their weaponry to intimidate unarmed folks in a political venue, not unlike Trump vermin stalking Clinton from behind at the second debate.
What are we supposed to do, call in Jane Goodall to give us an academic primer on goddamned alpha Republican primate dominance, or test their pussy fortitude by throwing creampies in their faces and running behind the shrubbery.
Or do we assume, since we don’t know them or their ultimate motivations, like George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin didn’t know each other, that personal safety is first and foremost and take it to them physically to ward off being shot for just standing there?
I mean, if Republicans want us to live this way in the public space, then by all means, let’s live their vision of pigf*ck America to its fullest threatening extent.
Let’s go. C’mon.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571
As someone notes at Balloon Juice, we’re entering “The Handmaid’s Tale” territory now.
But, I’ll try to keep up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571
As someone notes at Balloon Juice, we’re entering “The Handmaid’s Tale” territory now.
But, I’ll try to keep up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571
As someone notes at Balloon Juice, we’re entering “The Handmaid’s Tale” territory now.
But, I’ll try to keep up.
Say, you are a woman.
Say, you need brain surgery.
Say, you are wheeled into the operating theater and this guy orders the anesthesiologist to put you under so he can touch your brain and God knows what else?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-doesnt-matter-trump-groping-stories-true
Say, you are a woman.
Say, you need brain surgery.
Say, you are wheeled into the operating theater and this guy orders the anesthesiologist to put you under so he can touch your brain and God knows what else?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-doesnt-matter-trump-groping-stories-true
Say, you are a woman.
Say, you need brain surgery.
Say, you are wheeled into the operating theater and this guy orders the anesthesiologist to put you under so he can touch your brain and God knows what else?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-doesnt-matter-trump-groping-stories-true
i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was.
Cleek, I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were.
They may well have only now discovered, when those beliefs run up against political reality, that religion isn’t the bedrock that they had honestly believed it was. For some, that has to be a shattering revelation — or will be, once the election is over, and they have a little time away from horse-race enthusiasm to look at it.
I submit that this is also why there is some really bitter commentary about Trump from those for whom their religion really is fundamentally important. It’s hard to discover that your numbers are actually far smaller than you had thought. Which, once you subtract the pseudo-religious, they are. Bitter medicine indeed.
i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was.
Cleek, I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were.
They may well have only now discovered, when those beliefs run up against political reality, that religion isn’t the bedrock that they had honestly believed it was. For some, that has to be a shattering revelation — or will be, once the election is over, and they have a little time away from horse-race enthusiasm to look at it.
I submit that this is also why there is some really bitter commentary about Trump from those for whom their religion really is fundamentally important. It’s hard to discover that your numbers are actually far smaller than you had thought. Which, once you subtract the pseudo-religious, they are. Bitter medicine indeed.
i’ve decided i don’t believe them. i don’t believe that stuff is actually fundamentally important, and never was.
Cleek, I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were.
They may well have only now discovered, when those beliefs run up against political reality, that religion isn’t the bedrock that they had honestly believed it was. For some, that has to be a shattering revelation — or will be, once the election is over, and they have a little time away from horse-race enthusiasm to look at it.
I submit that this is also why there is some really bitter commentary about Trump from those for whom their religion really is fundamentally important. It’s hard to discover that your numbers are actually far smaller than you had thought. Which, once you subtract the pseudo-religious, they are. Bitter medicine indeed.
Put another way, one of the reasons that it is important to understand that “correlation is not causation” is exactly this. When what you have is correlation, it is all too easy to misunderstand which way causation actually runs.
These folks thought that their religion was what drove their political alignment. Turns out, once the correlation went away, it didn’t.
Put another way, one of the reasons that it is important to understand that “correlation is not causation” is exactly this. When what you have is correlation, it is all too easy to misunderstand which way causation actually runs.
These folks thought that their religion was what drove their political alignment. Turns out, once the correlation went away, it didn’t.
Put another way, one of the reasons that it is important to understand that “correlation is not causation” is exactly this. When what you have is correlation, it is all too easy to misunderstand which way causation actually runs.
These folks thought that their religion was what drove their political alignment. Turns out, once the correlation went away, it didn’t.
“Evangelicals” and Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-s-behind-evangelical-support-donald-trump-less-you-think-n666146
“Evangelicals” and Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-s-behind-evangelical-support-donald-trump-less-you-think-n666146
“Evangelicals” and Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-s-behind-evangelical-support-donald-trump-less-you-think-n666146
Hsh, I fear you’re right, you spoke too soon. This was on hilzoy’s twitter feed the other day, but the salient paragraph is:
And that’s the core of my deep, deep fear about this election cycle. I keep reading everywhere that college-educated people are breaking for Trump, that Trump is feeding on the people who have been left behind by this economy, and so forth and so on. It’s not what I’m seeing.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
Hsh, I fear you’re right, you spoke too soon. This was on hilzoy’s twitter feed the other day, but the salient paragraph is:
And that’s the core of my deep, deep fear about this election cycle. I keep reading everywhere that college-educated people are breaking for Trump, that Trump is feeding on the people who have been left behind by this economy, and so forth and so on. It’s not what I’m seeing.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
Hsh, I fear you’re right, you spoke too soon. This was on hilzoy’s twitter feed the other day, but the salient paragraph is:
And that’s the core of my deep, deep fear about this election cycle. I keep reading everywhere that college-educated people are breaking for Trump, that Trump is feeding on the people who have been left behind by this economy, and so forth and so on. It’s not what I’m seeing.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
I’m not too confident because if things go wrong, a disaster awaits. I am cautiously optimistic, because Trump has revealed who he is, and continues to do so. Most people don’t really like it. It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go. It’s too bad that the Trump “Second Amendment” supporters have stalked my district’s Congressional candidate’s office.
It’s too bad that this election has turned into a “reality” show. I think that most of my country has a grip on reality (truth?) though, given the approval ratings of POTUS and FLOTUS. Just hope that translates into whatever happens next.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
I’m not too confident because if things go wrong, a disaster awaits. I am cautiously optimistic, because Trump has revealed who he is, and continues to do so. Most people don’t really like it. It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go. It’s too bad that the Trump “Second Amendment” supporters have stalked my district’s Congressional candidate’s office.
It’s too bad that this election has turned into a “reality” show. I think that most of my country has a grip on reality (truth?) though, given the approval ratings of POTUS and FLOTUS. Just hope that translates into whatever happens next.
It’s worth reading the whole thing, before anybody gets too confident.
I’m not too confident because if things go wrong, a disaster awaits. I am cautiously optimistic, because Trump has revealed who he is, and continues to do so. Most people don’t really like it. It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go. It’s too bad that the Trump “Second Amendment” supporters have stalked my district’s Congressional candidate’s office.
It’s too bad that this election has turned into a “reality” show. I think that most of my country has a grip on reality (truth?) though, given the approval ratings of POTUS and FLOTUS. Just hope that translates into whatever happens next.
For what it’s worth, Sapient, I wasn’t thinking of you. I’m now on accursed phone, so cannot scroll hither and yon, but I think it may have been Ugh, possibly in the heading of this very post, who seemed to be taking an HRC victory for granted. Honestly, anybody would think some of you people had never heard of the Evil Eye.
For what it’s worth, Sapient, I wasn’t thinking of you. I’m now on accursed phone, so cannot scroll hither and yon, but I think it may have been Ugh, possibly in the heading of this very post, who seemed to be taking an HRC victory for granted. Honestly, anybody would think some of you people had never heard of the Evil Eye.
For what it’s worth, Sapient, I wasn’t thinking of you. I’m now on accursed phone, so cannot scroll hither and yon, but I think it may have been Ugh, possibly in the heading of this very post, who seemed to be taking an HRC victory for granted. Honestly, anybody would think some of you people had never heard of the Evil Eye.
Clinton will win. She will win easily. That is when the trouble starts, esp. if the Dems do not retake the Senate.
You heard it here first.
Clinton will win. She will win easily. That is when the trouble starts, esp. if the Dems do not retake the Senate.
You heard it here first.
Clinton will win. She will win easily. That is when the trouble starts, esp. if the Dems do not retake the Senate.
You heard it here first.
1861 trouble.
Capitalize the “T”.
No matter the outcome, worry.
ISIS will be the least of our worries.
1861 trouble.
Capitalize the “T”.
No matter the outcome, worry.
ISIS will be the least of our worries.
1861 trouble.
Capitalize the “T”.
No matter the outcome, worry.
ISIS will be the least of our worries.
I was on the flight in 1980-81 with the Trump accuser, and the human boner Trump, and noticed the Brit Gilberthorpe jacking off to the entire scene of Trump groping the woman, the former’s tongue gripped between his teeth as he reached maximum altitude, while he yelled imprecations to Dagny Taggert to tattoo her high heels a little more brutally on his back.
The airline attendants had to bring sanitary wipes to all of the passengers sitting three rows ahead and behind.
The pilot had to come back thru the cabin and settle everyone’s hash.
There was an Islamic-looking guy doing his prayers up by the front exit, but back then no one gave a sh*t, not even him.
It wasn’t until Newt Gingrich decided dicks and what is done to them was the linchpin of western civilization that folks began to take notice.
America: Full of Christ- and cock-obsessed, armed clowns.
Anyone want to f*ck with me.
I was on the flight in 1980-81 with the Trump accuser, and the human boner Trump, and noticed the Brit Gilberthorpe jacking off to the entire scene of Trump groping the woman, the former’s tongue gripped between his teeth as he reached maximum altitude, while he yelled imprecations to Dagny Taggert to tattoo her high heels a little more brutally on his back.
The airline attendants had to bring sanitary wipes to all of the passengers sitting three rows ahead and behind.
The pilot had to come back thru the cabin and settle everyone’s hash.
There was an Islamic-looking guy doing his prayers up by the front exit, but back then no one gave a sh*t, not even him.
It wasn’t until Newt Gingrich decided dicks and what is done to them was the linchpin of western civilization that folks began to take notice.
America: Full of Christ- and cock-obsessed, armed clowns.
Anyone want to f*ck with me.
I was on the flight in 1980-81 with the Trump accuser, and the human boner Trump, and noticed the Brit Gilberthorpe jacking off to the entire scene of Trump groping the woman, the former’s tongue gripped between his teeth as he reached maximum altitude, while he yelled imprecations to Dagny Taggert to tattoo her high heels a little more brutally on his back.
The airline attendants had to bring sanitary wipes to all of the passengers sitting three rows ahead and behind.
The pilot had to come back thru the cabin and settle everyone’s hash.
There was an Islamic-looking guy doing his prayers up by the front exit, but back then no one gave a sh*t, not even him.
It wasn’t until Newt Gingrich decided dicks and what is done to them was the linchpin of western civilization that folks began to take notice.
America: Full of Christ- and cock-obsessed, armed clowns.
Anyone want to f*ck with me.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-trump-w444943
The final image of the campaign, the last gasp, on the eve of election day, will be Trump tweeting his dic pic to the evangelicals he’s pursuing on Plenty of Fish.
We will learn days later that he photo-shopped a picture of Putin’s dick in place of his own.
Paul Ryan will state: “I thought it was his, but even if it was Putin’s, don’t vote for Clinton.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-trump-w444943
The final image of the campaign, the last gasp, on the eve of election day, will be Trump tweeting his dic pic to the evangelicals he’s pursuing on Plenty of Fish.
We will learn days later that he photo-shopped a picture of Putin’s dick in place of his own.
Paul Ryan will state: “I thought it was his, but even if it was Putin’s, don’t vote for Clinton.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-trump-w444943
The final image of the campaign, the last gasp, on the eve of election day, will be Trump tweeting his dic pic to the evangelicals he’s pursuing on Plenty of Fish.
We will learn days later that he photo-shopped a picture of Putin’s dick in place of his own.
Paul Ryan will state: “I thought it was his, but even if it was Putin’s, don’t vote for Clinton.”
@cleek
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
…except I never said it was. You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”, and arguing that one can derive clear, unambiguous messages from them. While also arguing that “ideological purists” should have no problem voting for someone they don’t support, because that’s just how things work, and lesser evilism is what you have to do. You argued ferociously and unwaveringly that those to your left should be voting for Clinton even if they found her to be noxious, because from your (and their) POV Trump was worse. Yet when it comes time to decipher the “meaning” of support for Trump, there can only be one, and it’s support for the whole package, warts and all.
Those two POVs don’t sync up. At all. In a system where strategic voting is – as you freely admit yet again – unavoidable, it is absurd to claim that supporting a major-party candidate “means” something. I wouldn’t disagree if you were simply attacking the perennial pious protestations from portions of the rightwing press that a president’s personal character matters more than their policy preferences (I’ve had a grim chuckle watching some long-time advocates of this suddenly find religion, such as it were, on the primacy of policy). That’s blatant, rank hypocrisy, and this is only the most dramatic example in a very long list of examples. But deeper meaning? No. If strategic voting wasn’t there to muddy the waters, you could, but alas, just as we cast votes within the system we have, not the one we might want, we also can only cast aspersions upon opponents in the context of our existing politics rather than hypotheticals.
Claiming that this election is unique in the awfulness of the Republican nominee also ignores that for many on the right this election is unique in the awfulness of the Democratic nominee; as Clintonistas constantly remind everyone in earshot, Clinton has been demonized on the right for decades. Even if you and I don’t find these criticisms to be credible, that doesn’t mean that people on the right aren’t holding their nose, looking at the Congress and the courts, and voting for their subjective lesser evil.
@sapient:
It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
@cleek
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
…except I never said it was. You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”, and arguing that one can derive clear, unambiguous messages from them. While also arguing that “ideological purists” should have no problem voting for someone they don’t support, because that’s just how things work, and lesser evilism is what you have to do. You argued ferociously and unwaveringly that those to your left should be voting for Clinton even if they found her to be noxious, because from your (and their) POV Trump was worse. Yet when it comes time to decipher the “meaning” of support for Trump, there can only be one, and it’s support for the whole package, warts and all.
Those two POVs don’t sync up. At all. In a system where strategic voting is – as you freely admit yet again – unavoidable, it is absurd to claim that supporting a major-party candidate “means” something. I wouldn’t disagree if you were simply attacking the perennial pious protestations from portions of the rightwing press that a president’s personal character matters more than their policy preferences (I’ve had a grim chuckle watching some long-time advocates of this suddenly find religion, such as it were, on the primacy of policy). That’s blatant, rank hypocrisy, and this is only the most dramatic example in a very long list of examples. But deeper meaning? No. If strategic voting wasn’t there to muddy the waters, you could, but alas, just as we cast votes within the system we have, not the one we might want, we also can only cast aspersions upon opponents in the context of our existing politics rather than hypotheticals.
Claiming that this election is unique in the awfulness of the Republican nominee also ignores that for many on the right this election is unique in the awfulness of the Democratic nominee; as Clintonistas constantly remind everyone in earshot, Clinton has been demonized on the right for decades. Even if you and I don’t find these criticisms to be credible, that doesn’t mean that people on the right aren’t holding their nose, looking at the Congress and the courts, and voting for their subjective lesser evil.
@sapient:
It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
@cleek
NV, i’m very sorry that you’re still sore about the fact that first-past-the-post elections don’t comfortably accommodate protest votes. but that’s not what this is about.
…except I never said it was. You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”, and arguing that one can derive clear, unambiguous messages from them. While also arguing that “ideological purists” should have no problem voting for someone they don’t support, because that’s just how things work, and lesser evilism is what you have to do. You argued ferociously and unwaveringly that those to your left should be voting for Clinton even if they found her to be noxious, because from your (and their) POV Trump was worse. Yet when it comes time to decipher the “meaning” of support for Trump, there can only be one, and it’s support for the whole package, warts and all.
Those two POVs don’t sync up. At all. In a system where strategic voting is – as you freely admit yet again – unavoidable, it is absurd to claim that supporting a major-party candidate “means” something. I wouldn’t disagree if you were simply attacking the perennial pious protestations from portions of the rightwing press that a president’s personal character matters more than their policy preferences (I’ve had a grim chuckle watching some long-time advocates of this suddenly find religion, such as it were, on the primacy of policy). That’s blatant, rank hypocrisy, and this is only the most dramatic example in a very long list of examples. But deeper meaning? No. If strategic voting wasn’t there to muddy the waters, you could, but alas, just as we cast votes within the system we have, not the one we might want, we also can only cast aspersions upon opponents in the context of our existing politics rather than hypotheticals.
Claiming that this election is unique in the awfulness of the Republican nominee also ignores that for many on the right this election is unique in the awfulness of the Democratic nominee; as Clintonistas constantly remind everyone in earshot, Clinton has been demonized on the right for decades. Even if you and I don’t find these criticisms to be credible, that doesn’t mean that people on the right aren’t holding their nose, looking at the Congress and the courts, and voting for their subjective lesser evil.
@sapient:
It’s too bad that the Hillary haters can’t let go.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
Great cartoon in that Rolling Stone link.
Great cartoon in that Rolling Stone link.
Great cartoon in that Rolling Stone link.
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
The moral of the story: joe to the city.
The moral of the story: joe to the city.
The moral of the story: joe to the city.
“Move” not joe.
“Move” not joe.
“Move” not joe.
then there is this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-emails-raise-possibility-of-clinton-foundation-ethics-breach/ar-AAiY4vE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
but, to be fair, the Qatar donation in question may have just been a million dollar birthday present just for Bill, not the foundation. Oh, well that makes it ok then.
then there is this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-emails-raise-possibility-of-clinton-foundation-ethics-breach/ar-AAiY4vE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
but, to be fair, the Qatar donation in question may have just been a million dollar birthday present just for Bill, not the foundation. Oh, well that makes it ok then.
then there is this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-emails-raise-possibility-of-clinton-foundation-ethics-breach/ar-AAiY4vE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
but, to be fair, the Qatar donation in question may have just been a million dollar birthday present just for Bill, not the foundation. Oh, well that makes it ok then.
the cracked piece was great. somehow, the online incarnation of cracked has become the home of some of the best political and social writing available now.
my only quibble with the piece is the title. the stuff that ‘nobody is talking about’ is the stuff that everyone is talking about.
and has been, for like 40 years. probably more.
what do folks think Nixon ran on? who were the ‘Reagan democrats’?
okie from muskogee, amirite?
trump’s people are nothing new.
people in cities and in rural areas have different interests. I have no problem with that. let’s work it out.
throw a brick through my window, and my interest in working it out kinda disappears.
the cracked piece was great. somehow, the online incarnation of cracked has become the home of some of the best political and social writing available now.
my only quibble with the piece is the title. the stuff that ‘nobody is talking about’ is the stuff that everyone is talking about.
and has been, for like 40 years. probably more.
what do folks think Nixon ran on? who were the ‘Reagan democrats’?
okie from muskogee, amirite?
trump’s people are nothing new.
people in cities and in rural areas have different interests. I have no problem with that. let’s work it out.
throw a brick through my window, and my interest in working it out kinda disappears.
the cracked piece was great. somehow, the online incarnation of cracked has become the home of some of the best political and social writing available now.
my only quibble with the piece is the title. the stuff that ‘nobody is talking about’ is the stuff that everyone is talking about.
and has been, for like 40 years. probably more.
what do folks think Nixon ran on? who were the ‘Reagan democrats’?
okie from muskogee, amirite?
trump’s people are nothing new.
people in cities and in rural areas have different interests. I have no problem with that. let’s work it out.
throw a brick through my window, and my interest in working it out kinda disappears.
the cracked piece was great,
Seconded!
But I still need a better explanation for the seemingly innumerable friends of mine who support Trump, even if on a lesser-of-evils basis (though some are enthusiastic about him). They are, for the most part, people who grew up in either an inner suburb of Philadelphia or in Phoenix proper. A few are even NYC-metro natives.
the cracked piece was great,
Seconded!
But I still need a better explanation for the seemingly innumerable friends of mine who support Trump, even if on a lesser-of-evils basis (though some are enthusiastic about him). They are, for the most part, people who grew up in either an inner suburb of Philadelphia or in Phoenix proper. A few are even NYC-metro natives.
the cracked piece was great,
Seconded!
But I still need a better explanation for the seemingly innumerable friends of mine who support Trump, even if on a lesser-of-evils basis (though some are enthusiastic about him). They are, for the most part, people who grew up in either an inner suburb of Philadelphia or in Phoenix proper. A few are even NYC-metro natives.
hsh, I wonder if there isn’t something to russell’s description of Trump being a typical NY blowhard that makes him relatable to some folks from that corridor? Phoenix, I dunno.
hsh, I wonder if there isn’t something to russell’s description of Trump being a typical NY blowhard that makes him relatable to some folks from that corridor? Phoenix, I dunno.
hsh, I wonder if there isn’t something to russell’s description of Trump being a typical NY blowhard that makes him relatable to some folks from that corridor? Phoenix, I dunno.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
Criticizing?
Dayan’s piece is written from the perspective of one of those “disappointed” in the Obama administration. I am not one of them, so I have trouble objecting to, say, Obama’s staffing decisions.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
Criticizing?
Dayan’s piece is written from the perspective of one of those “disappointed” in the Obama administration. I am not one of them, so I have trouble objecting to, say, Obama’s staffing decisions.
Because criticizing Clinton is hatred and refusal to let go, not looking ahead. Obviously.
Criticizing?
Dayan’s piece is written from the perspective of one of those “disappointed” in the Obama administration. I am not one of them, so I have trouble objecting to, say, Obama’s staffing decisions.
You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”,
still very sore i see.
take an aspirin or something.
You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”,
still very sore i see.
take an aspirin or something.
You’re the one who’s obsessing about knowing what votes and donations “mean”,
still very sore i see.
take an aspirin or something.
I really don’t get NV’s criticism of cleek’s position on evangelicals who support Trump, particularly those who claim to be especially concerned about traditional family values and sexual mores. The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him. That’s not the same as holding your nose to keep Trump out of office if you’re some stripe of liberal/progressive.
If Clinton were a vulgar, thrice-divorced, womanizing (or manizing, I guess) sexual predator, then I suppose they would be on equal footing on that account, allowing evangelicals to consider the candidates’ otherwise lesser-evilness.
If we were talking about, say, your run-of-the-mill Tea Party types and not specificallly about evangelicals, I could see it. As it stands, not so much.
I really don’t get NV’s criticism of cleek’s position on evangelicals who support Trump, particularly those who claim to be especially concerned about traditional family values and sexual mores. The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him. That’s not the same as holding your nose to keep Trump out of office if you’re some stripe of liberal/progressive.
If Clinton were a vulgar, thrice-divorced, womanizing (or manizing, I guess) sexual predator, then I suppose they would be on equal footing on that account, allowing evangelicals to consider the candidates’ otherwise lesser-evilness.
If we were talking about, say, your run-of-the-mill Tea Party types and not specificallly about evangelicals, I could see it. As it stands, not so much.
I really don’t get NV’s criticism of cleek’s position on evangelicals who support Trump, particularly those who claim to be especially concerned about traditional family values and sexual mores. The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him. That’s not the same as holding your nose to keep Trump out of office if you’re some stripe of liberal/progressive.
If Clinton were a vulgar, thrice-divorced, womanizing (or manizing, I guess) sexual predator, then I suppose they would be on equal footing on that account, allowing evangelicals to consider the candidates’ otherwise lesser-evilness.
If we were talking about, say, your run-of-the-mill Tea Party types and not specificallly about evangelicals, I could see it. As it stands, not so much.
here’s a plausible take on the matter of Trump v moralizers:
i’m sure Marty et al won’t agree. but, what would this place be without disagreement…
here’s a plausible take on the matter of Trump v moralizers:
i’m sure Marty et al won’t agree. but, what would this place be without disagreement…
here’s a plausible take on the matter of Trump v moralizers:
i’m sure Marty et al won’t agree. but, what would this place be without disagreement…
The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him.
this.
i’d been assuming that religion is fundamentally different than and crucially more important to these people than policy. and i assume this because they constantly cite religion as being the basis of their policy – and that their religion should be the basis for the laws that govern everybody. it was supposed to be the center of their belief system. it was about heaven and hell and eternal damnation and their everlasting soul, fer chrissake. it wasn’t about tax rates and trade deals.
i assumed “religion” trumped all.
i was wrong.
The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him.
this.
i’d been assuming that religion is fundamentally different than and crucially more important to these people than policy. and i assume this because they constantly cite religion as being the basis of their policy – and that their religion should be the basis for the laws that govern everybody. it was supposed to be the center of their belief system. it was about heaven and hell and eternal damnation and their everlasting soul, fer chrissake. it wasn’t about tax rates and trade deals.
i assumed “religion” trumped all.
i was wrong.
The problem is that Trump violates what is supposedly the very core of their belief system, yet they still support him.
this.
i’d been assuming that religion is fundamentally different than and crucially more important to these people than policy. and i assume this because they constantly cite religion as being the basis of their policy – and that their religion should be the basis for the laws that govern everybody. it was supposed to be the center of their belief system. it was about heaven and hell and eternal damnation and their everlasting soul, fer chrissake. it wasn’t about tax rates and trade deals.
i assumed “religion” trumped all.
i was wrong.
Scroll down a bit and Rod quotes an ex Republican activist who blasts her former political allies who still defend Trump.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/adventures-in-gallantry-trump/
Hopefully this is a common reaction. It’s not unusual to find people being hypocrites about bigotry or nastiness about some other group or looking the other way or even endorsing some horrible policy. But people often draw the line at bigotry aimed squarely at themselves. Though I am not saying this particular person fell into that category– I’ve never heard of her but she sounds like someone who was anti- Trump all along.
Scroll down a bit and Rod quotes an ex Republican activist who blasts her former political allies who still defend Trump.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/adventures-in-gallantry-trump/
Hopefully this is a common reaction. It’s not unusual to find people being hypocrites about bigotry or nastiness about some other group or looking the other way or even endorsing some horrible policy. But people often draw the line at bigotry aimed squarely at themselves. Though I am not saying this particular person fell into that category– I’ve never heard of her but she sounds like someone who was anti- Trump all along.
Scroll down a bit and Rod quotes an ex Republican activist who blasts her former political allies who still defend Trump.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/adventures-in-gallantry-trump/
Hopefully this is a common reaction. It’s not unusual to find people being hypocrites about bigotry or nastiness about some other group or looking the other way or even endorsing some horrible policy. But people often draw the line at bigotry aimed squarely at themselves. Though I am not saying this particular person fell into that category– I’ve never heard of her but she sounds like someone who was anti- Trump all along.
The comments underneath the Dreher post are interesting too. All over the place politically– there is more variety ideologically speaking in a Drher thread than any other place I can think of.
The comments underneath the Dreher post are interesting too. All over the place politically– there is more variety ideologically speaking in a Drher thread than any other place I can think of.
The comments underneath the Dreher post are interesting too. All over the place politically– there is more variety ideologically speaking in a Drher thread than any other place I can think of.
Apparently, recently, to Trump’s rude comments to his crowd about the female People Magazine reporter, his supporters launched into frenzied chanting “Lock her up!”
I’m supposed to understand these Madame Defarges. Lock that woman up to?! Maybe assault and grope her too on the way to abolishing the 19th Amendment.
The Cracked article was great. But no amount of satire, no matter how cracked and brilliant, can fully capture the utterly mundane, but hallucinatory stupidity on one hand and at the other end of the realty show spectrum, the damaging, dangerousness of these mobs.
It’s like assembling millions of Dana Carvey’s Church Ladies on one stage and watching all of them go facially lemony puckered-up in disgust on the one hand, but also become rather hot in the loins over the prospect that maybe something really is special.
Throw in some big clipped AR-15s and colossally ingrown conspiracy mongering and what you have is both the tackiest, most ridiculous AND possibly the most lethal political movement in the history of western democratic civilization.
Trotsky meets Soupy Sales. We’re all going to die laughing. It’s like finding out Himmler wasn’t a chicken farmer; he actually manufactured rubber chickens for the American Borscht Belt comedian market, but don’t let that make you think there aren’t gas chambers at the end of all this road we are on.
And then the little dance at the end by the Church Ladies to celebrate the catechism of the Church of the Latter-Day Reformed Blowjobs.
Apparently, recently, to Trump’s rude comments to his crowd about the female People Magazine reporter, his supporters launched into frenzied chanting “Lock her up!”
I’m supposed to understand these Madame Defarges. Lock that woman up to?! Maybe assault and grope her too on the way to abolishing the 19th Amendment.
The Cracked article was great. But no amount of satire, no matter how cracked and brilliant, can fully capture the utterly mundane, but hallucinatory stupidity on one hand and at the other end of the realty show spectrum, the damaging, dangerousness of these mobs.
It’s like assembling millions of Dana Carvey’s Church Ladies on one stage and watching all of them go facially lemony puckered-up in disgust on the one hand, but also become rather hot in the loins over the prospect that maybe something really is special.
Throw in some big clipped AR-15s and colossally ingrown conspiracy mongering and what you have is both the tackiest, most ridiculous AND possibly the most lethal political movement in the history of western democratic civilization.
Trotsky meets Soupy Sales. We’re all going to die laughing. It’s like finding out Himmler wasn’t a chicken farmer; he actually manufactured rubber chickens for the American Borscht Belt comedian market, but don’t let that make you think there aren’t gas chambers at the end of all this road we are on.
And then the little dance at the end by the Church Ladies to celebrate the catechism of the Church of the Latter-Day Reformed Blowjobs.
Apparently, recently, to Trump’s rude comments to his crowd about the female People Magazine reporter, his supporters launched into frenzied chanting “Lock her up!”
I’m supposed to understand these Madame Defarges. Lock that woman up to?! Maybe assault and grope her too on the way to abolishing the 19th Amendment.
The Cracked article was great. But no amount of satire, no matter how cracked and brilliant, can fully capture the utterly mundane, but hallucinatory stupidity on one hand and at the other end of the realty show spectrum, the damaging, dangerousness of these mobs.
It’s like assembling millions of Dana Carvey’s Church Ladies on one stage and watching all of them go facially lemony puckered-up in disgust on the one hand, but also become rather hot in the loins over the prospect that maybe something really is special.
Throw in some big clipped AR-15s and colossally ingrown conspiracy mongering and what you have is both the tackiest, most ridiculous AND possibly the most lethal political movement in the history of western democratic civilization.
Trotsky meets Soupy Sales. We’re all going to die laughing. It’s like finding out Himmler wasn’t a chicken farmer; he actually manufactured rubber chickens for the American Borscht Belt comedian market, but don’t let that make you think there aren’t gas chambers at the end of all this road we are on.
And then the little dance at the end by the Church Ladies to celebrate the catechism of the Church of the Latter-Day Reformed Blowjobs.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/787250439658102784/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/787250439658102784/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/787250439658102784/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Regarding nv’s link about Democratic staffing decisions:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/15/1581444/-White-nationalists-see-not-just-opportunities-but-possible-cabinet-posts-in-Trump-administration
The Democratic Party has its problems. Few would disagree.
A Republican Trump win is a game-ender. Flip the board and the first one to the guns wins.
Regarding nv’s link about Democratic staffing decisions:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/15/1581444/-White-nationalists-see-not-just-opportunities-but-possible-cabinet-posts-in-Trump-administration
The Democratic Party has its problems. Few would disagree.
A Republican Trump win is a game-ender. Flip the board and the first one to the guns wins.
Regarding nv’s link about Democratic staffing decisions:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/15/1581444/-White-nationalists-see-not-just-opportunities-but-possible-cabinet-posts-in-Trump-administration
The Democratic Party has its problems. Few would disagree.
A Republican Trump win is a game-ender. Flip the board and the first one to the guns wins.
Count is becoming more and more prophetic with each passing day
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html
Count is becoming more and more prophetic with each passing day
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html
Count is becoming more and more prophetic with each passing day
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html
The new Trump campaign slogan: There Will be Blood
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/we-cant-have-that-lying-bitch-in-white.html
The new Trump campaign slogan: There Will be Blood
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/we-cant-have-that-lying-bitch-in-white.html
The new Trump campaign slogan: There Will be Blood
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/we-cant-have-that-lying-bitch-in-white.html
Ken Bone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g540n3sLh68
Ken Bone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g540n3sLh68
Ken Bone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g540n3sLh68
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-press-always-got-booed-at-trump-rallies-but-now-the-aggression-is-menacing/2016/10/14/6092ea34-922d-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_mhp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard
Tell the truth!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-press-always-got-booed-at-trump-rallies-but-now-the-aggression-is-menacing/2016/10/14/6092ea34-922d-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_mhp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard
Tell the truth!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-press-always-got-booed-at-trump-rallies-but-now-the-aggression-is-menacing/2016/10/14/6092ea34-922d-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_mhp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard
Tell the truth!
He, Trump is the middle finger that half of America is raising to the other half. His vulgarity and viciousness are the dirt under its fingernail.
The half of America that’s raising its middle finger is NOT, by any means, the rural half. Here in liberal, elitist, cosmopolitan, suburban Boston there are well-off, educated, outwardly sane people who support He, Trump even now. I can’t be sure, of course, but I bet there are poor, uneducated, outwardly-sane people in conservative, pious, backwoods hamlets in Appalachia who support Hillary. So I remain doubtful that we have formulated the Grand Unified Theory of Trumpism yet.
All I can say is that when half of my fellow Americans give me the finger, I take it personally. In that respect, I’m very much like them.
–TP
He, Trump is the middle finger that half of America is raising to the other half. His vulgarity and viciousness are the dirt under its fingernail.
The half of America that’s raising its middle finger is NOT, by any means, the rural half. Here in liberal, elitist, cosmopolitan, suburban Boston there are well-off, educated, outwardly sane people who support He, Trump even now. I can’t be sure, of course, but I bet there are poor, uneducated, outwardly-sane people in conservative, pious, backwoods hamlets in Appalachia who support Hillary. So I remain doubtful that we have formulated the Grand Unified Theory of Trumpism yet.
All I can say is that when half of my fellow Americans give me the finger, I take it personally. In that respect, I’m very much like them.
–TP
He, Trump is the middle finger that half of America is raising to the other half. His vulgarity and viciousness are the dirt under its fingernail.
The half of America that’s raising its middle finger is NOT, by any means, the rural half. Here in liberal, elitist, cosmopolitan, suburban Boston there are well-off, educated, outwardly sane people who support He, Trump even now. I can’t be sure, of course, but I bet there are poor, uneducated, outwardly-sane people in conservative, pious, backwoods hamlets in Appalachia who support Hillary. So I remain doubtful that we have formulated the Grand Unified Theory of Trumpism yet.
All I can say is that when half of my fellow Americans give me the finger, I take it personally. In that respect, I’m very much like them.
–TP
Ah, but what is truth?
As far as I can tell, a lot of Trump supporters are in a place where what they see around them is seriously different from what they see in the MSM. Or in government statistics.
The reality IMHO is that the reality around them is simply not typical of the country as a whole. But it’s hard to embrace the idea that “my situation is exceptional” . . . unless, of course, my situation is exceptional and better than the norm. Far more comfortable to just decide that the reports are lies.
Ah, but what is truth?
As far as I can tell, a lot of Trump supporters are in a place where what they see around them is seriously different from what they see in the MSM. Or in government statistics.
The reality IMHO is that the reality around them is simply not typical of the country as a whole. But it’s hard to embrace the idea that “my situation is exceptional” . . . unless, of course, my situation is exceptional and better than the norm. Far more comfortable to just decide that the reports are lies.
Ah, but what is truth?
As far as I can tell, a lot of Trump supporters are in a place where what they see around them is seriously different from what they see in the MSM. Or in government statistics.
The reality IMHO is that the reality around them is simply not typical of the country as a whole. But it’s hard to embrace the idea that “my situation is exceptional” . . . unless, of course, my situation is exceptional and better than the norm. Far more comfortable to just decide that the reports are lies.
This is so brilliant that I may take a vow of silence:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/14/viv-stanshall-day-2016/#more-40739
“Turkey to the gentry, poultry to the lowly”
This is so brilliant that I may take a vow of silence:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/14/viv-stanshall-day-2016/#more-40739
“Turkey to the gentry, poultry to the lowly”
This is so brilliant that I may take a vow of silence:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/14/viv-stanshall-day-2016/#more-40739
“Turkey to the gentry, poultry to the lowly”
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
Posted by: Marty | October 15, 2016 at 07:14 AM
Did you read the rest of the story?
Very good stuff.
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
Posted by: Marty | October 15, 2016 at 07:14 AM
Did you read the rest of the story?
Very good stuff.
What NV said plus
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
Posted by: Marty | October 15, 2016 at 07:14 AM
Did you read the rest of the story?
Very good stuff.
Very good stuff.
Yes. Thanks for that.
Very good stuff.
Yes. Thanks for that.
Very good stuff.
Yes. Thanks for that.
“I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were. ”
I will try this again.
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
His sins are great, but the Democrats openly mock them, call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school, along with handing out condoms, embrace gay marriage and more. Which of these do they think Trump is for?
Them voting for Clinton would be like an illegal immigrant voting for Trump.
“I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were. ”
I will try this again.
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
His sins are great, but the Democrats openly mock them, call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school, along with handing out condoms, embrace gay marriage and more. Which of these do they think Trump is for?
Them voting for Clinton would be like an illegal immigrant voting for Trump.
“I agree that it has turned out that those religious beliefs are not actually fundamentally important to a big number of them. But I think it’s entirely possible that they thought, until now, their beliefs were. ”
I will try this again.
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
His sins are great, but the Democrats openly mock them, call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school, along with handing out condoms, embrace gay marriage and more. Which of these do they think Trump is for?
Them voting for Clinton would be like an illegal immigrant voting for Trump.
call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school
which of those are not true?
along with handing out condoms,
that remains under local control, yes?
embrace gay marriage and more
what could a President Trump do about it? issue an executive order to ban gay marriage? threaten to hang Justices of the Peace?
it’s not up to the President.
Which of these do they think Trump is for?
which do you think Trump is actually against ? not just his rhetoric, but his actual position, given that his rhetoric changes from hour to hour, depending on the question and audience.
he’s playing his base for suckers, just like he has always done, in every other aspect of his life. it doesn’t take a liberal genius to spot a con man.
or maybe it does.
call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school
which of those are not true?
along with handing out condoms,
that remains under local control, yes?
embrace gay marriage and more
what could a President Trump do about it? issue an executive order to ban gay marriage? threaten to hang Justices of the Peace?
it’s not up to the President.
Which of these do they think Trump is for?
which do you think Trump is actually against ? not just his rhetoric, but his actual position, given that his rhetoric changes from hour to hour, depending on the question and audience.
he’s playing his base for suckers, just like he has always done, in every other aspect of his life. it doesn’t take a liberal genius to spot a con man.
or maybe it does.
call them science deniers, support abortion at any age, want sex education taught in grade school
which of those are not true?
along with handing out condoms,
that remains under local control, yes?
embrace gay marriage and more
what could a President Trump do about it? issue an executive order to ban gay marriage? threaten to hang Justices of the Peace?
it’s not up to the President.
Which of these do they think Trump is for?
which do you think Trump is actually against ? not just his rhetoric, but his actual position, given that his rhetoric changes from hour to hour, depending on the question and audience.
he’s playing his base for suckers, just like he has always done, in every other aspect of his life. it doesn’t take a liberal genius to spot a con man.
or maybe it does.
sorry. misread your list.
they are science deniers.
“Which of these do they think Trump is for?”
Not even Trump knows, so how would they?
sorry. misread your list.
they are science deniers.
“Which of these do they think Trump is for?”
Not even Trump knows, so how would they?
sorry. misread your list.
they are science deniers.
“Which of these do they think Trump is for?”
Not even Trump knows, so how would they?
I’m willing to bet that Trump is directly responsible for more aborted fetuses in his rollicking lifetime than the first half dozen rows of Clinton supporters at her election night celebration speech.
Give his M.O., I don’t think he paid for too many of them.
I’m willing to bet that Trump is directly responsible for more aborted fetuses in his rollicking lifetime than the first half dozen rows of Clinton supporters at her election night celebration speech.
Give his M.O., I don’t think he paid for too many of them.
I’m willing to bet that Trump is directly responsible for more aborted fetuses in his rollicking lifetime than the first half dozen rows of Clinton supporters at her election night celebration speech.
Give his M.O., I don’t think he paid for too many of them.
“Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?”
because there is more at stake than whether a particular political leader shares your personal religious values.
Hindus vote for people who eat beef.
Muslims vote for people who eat pork.
Jews vote for people who eat shrimp.
Buddhists vote for people who swat flies.
all of them do so because they understand that public governance has purposes other than affirming the personal religious beliefs.
“Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?”
because there is more at stake than whether a particular political leader shares your personal religious values.
Hindus vote for people who eat beef.
Muslims vote for people who eat pork.
Jews vote for people who eat shrimp.
Buddhists vote for people who swat flies.
all of them do so because they understand that public governance has purposes other than affirming the personal religious beliefs.
“Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?”
because there is more at stake than whether a particular political leader shares your personal religious values.
Hindus vote for people who eat beef.
Muslims vote for people who eat pork.
Jews vote for people who eat shrimp.
Buddhists vote for people who swat flies.
all of them do so because they understand that public governance has purposes other than affirming the personal religious beliefs.
affirming *their* personal religious beliefs
affirming *their* personal religious beliefs
affirming *their* personal religious beliefs
Furthermore, I doubt some of Trump’s conquests wanted the abortions, but were pressured to carry thru.
Trump’s logic: Look at some of these bimbos. You think I want a kid around with those ugly set of chops.
Furthermore, I doubt some of Trump’s conquests wanted the abortions, but were pressured to carry thru.
Trump’s logic: Look at some of these bimbos. You think I want a kid around with those ugly set of chops.
Furthermore, I doubt some of Trump’s conquests wanted the abortions, but were pressured to carry thru.
Trump’s logic: Look at some of these bimbos. You think I want a kid around with those ugly set of chops.
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Sure. Why would they? On the other hand, with their support of Trump they reveal they would dance with the devil himself if it meant the victory of their political agenda.
So, as I interpret cleek to be saying, it’s not about religion, it’s about their team winning.
As a rabid take no prisoners partisan, I don’t mind this. It’s the sanctimony I can’t abide.
They’re just like us. 🙂
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Sure. Why would they? On the other hand, with their support of Trump they reveal they would dance with the devil himself if it meant the victory of their political agenda.
So, as I interpret cleek to be saying, it’s not about religion, it’s about their team winning.
As a rabid take no prisoners partisan, I don’t mind this. It’s the sanctimony I can’t abide.
They’re just like us. 🙂
Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Sure. Why would they? On the other hand, with their support of Trump they reveal they would dance with the devil himself if it meant the victory of their political agenda.
So, as I interpret cleek to be saying, it’s not about religion, it’s about their team winning.
As a rabid take no prisoners partisan, I don’t mind this. It’s the sanctimony I can’t abide.
They’re just like us. 🙂
“support abortion at any age”
Uh, so I take it that you think if an eleven-year-old girl is raped ad gets pregnant she should be forced to carry the pregnant to term?
“support abortion at any age”
Uh, so I take it that you think if an eleven-year-old girl is raped ad gets pregnant she should be forced to carry the pregnant to term?
“support abortion at any age”
Uh, so I take it that you think if an eleven-year-old girl is raped ad gets pregnant she should be forced to carry the pregnant to term?
I’m guessing Marty meant “support abortion at any number of weeks of gestation”.
I’m guessing Marty meant “support abortion at any number of weeks of gestation”.
I’m guessing Marty meant “support abortion at any number of weeks of gestation”.
Marty asks: Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Marty seems to think ALL evangelical Christians (or perhaps all TRUE evangelical Christians) think the same way about preserving a livable planet, protecting minority voting rights, defending the already-born even with tax money if necessary, waiting for non-sinners to cast the first stone, and generally believing that if God plans to punish the wicked then they don’t have to take the job on themselves.
–TP
Marty asks: Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Marty seems to think ALL evangelical Christians (or perhaps all TRUE evangelical Christians) think the same way about preserving a livable planet, protecting minority voting rights, defending the already-born even with tax money if necessary, waiting for non-sinners to cast the first stone, and generally believing that if God plans to punish the wicked then they don’t have to take the job on themselves.
–TP
Marty asks: Why would any evangelical Christian believe that Hillary, and a Democratic administration in general, would be better for them?
Marty seems to think ALL evangelical Christians (or perhaps all TRUE evangelical Christians) think the same way about preserving a livable planet, protecting minority voting rights, defending the already-born even with tax money if necessary, waiting for non-sinners to cast the first stone, and generally believing that if God plans to punish the wicked then they don’t have to take the job on themselves.
–TP
Yes GftNC.
Apparently TP not reads minds, just not very clearly. I’m sure Evangelical Christians have a broad range of political views. Like everyone they prioritize those views. I, of course, was objecting to the characterization that their religious views were somehow less important because some are voting for Trump.
There is nothing inconsistent about their prioritization of the things I mentioned over those you(TP) mentioned.
But, russell lists Hindus voting for people who eat beef, like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party. Who could imagine that Evangelicals would think there issues aren’t being taken seriously?
Yes GftNC.
Apparently TP not reads minds, just not very clearly. I’m sure Evangelical Christians have a broad range of political views. Like everyone they prioritize those views. I, of course, was objecting to the characterization that their religious views were somehow less important because some are voting for Trump.
There is nothing inconsistent about their prioritization of the things I mentioned over those you(TP) mentioned.
But, russell lists Hindus voting for people who eat beef, like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party. Who could imagine that Evangelicals would think there issues aren’t being taken seriously?
Yes GftNC.
Apparently TP not reads minds, just not very clearly. I’m sure Evangelical Christians have a broad range of political views. Like everyone they prioritize those views. I, of course, was objecting to the characterization that their religious views were somehow less important because some are voting for Trump.
There is nothing inconsistent about their prioritization of the things I mentioned over those you(TP) mentioned.
But, russell lists Hindus voting for people who eat beef, like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party. Who could imagine that Evangelicals would think there issues aren’t being taken seriously?
Remember when:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/10/you-fucked-up-you-trusted-them.html
Remember when:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/10/you-fucked-up-you-trusted-them.html
Remember when:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/10/you-fucked-up-you-trusted-them.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ally-sheriff-david-calrke-says-its-pitchforks-and-torches-time
David, get with the times. Your people started the arms race and are stocked to the gills with military-grade automatic weaponry and more ammo than was expended at the Battle of the Bulge.
Bring on the pitchforks and torches though and see what the f*ck happens to you.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ally-sheriff-david-calrke-says-its-pitchforks-and-torches-time
David, get with the times. Your people started the arms race and are stocked to the gills with military-grade automatic weaponry and more ammo than was expended at the Battle of the Bulge.
Bring on the pitchforks and torches though and see what the f*ck happens to you.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ally-sheriff-david-calrke-says-its-pitchforks-and-torches-time
David, get with the times. Your people started the arms race and are stocked to the gills with military-grade automatic weaponry and more ammo than was expended at the Battle of the Bulge.
Bring on the pitchforks and torches though and see what the f*ck happens to you.
When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities in this country, will the NeverTrumpers give us sanctuary, or will they argue that both sides do it.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/law-enforcement-for-trump.html
When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities in this country, will the NeverTrumpers give us sanctuary, or will they argue that both sides do it.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/law-enforcement-for-trump.html
When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities in this country, will the NeverTrumpers give us sanctuary, or will they argue that both sides do it.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/law-enforcement-for-trump.html
“like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party.”
they serve it for lunch at school. pork, too. probably not shrimp.
the hindus and muslims are being oppressed and denied their right to practice their religion!!
nobody is oppressing evangelical christians. and, as tony p points out, evangelical ‘issues’ cover a lot of ground.
kaine is a publicly professing christian, and is very clear that he is motivated by his faith. does he count? if not, why not? wrong kind of christian?
if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.
this isn’t the united states of jesus. other kinds of people live here.
and don’t even try the ‘hostile to religion’ BS with me.
“like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party.”
they serve it for lunch at school. pork, too. probably not shrimp.
the hindus and muslims are being oppressed and denied their right to practice their religion!!
nobody is oppressing evangelical christians. and, as tony p points out, evangelical ‘issues’ cover a lot of ground.
kaine is a publicly professing christian, and is very clear that he is motivated by his faith. does he count? if not, why not? wrong kind of christian?
if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.
this isn’t the united states of jesus. other kinds of people live here.
and don’t even try the ‘hostile to religion’ BS with me.
“like there is a huge movement to force people to eat beef in either party.”
they serve it for lunch at school. pork, too. probably not shrimp.
the hindus and muslims are being oppressed and denied their right to practice their religion!!
nobody is oppressing evangelical christians. and, as tony p points out, evangelical ‘issues’ cover a lot of ground.
kaine is a publicly professing christian, and is very clear that he is motivated by his faith. does he count? if not, why not? wrong kind of christian?
if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.
this isn’t the united states of jesus. other kinds of people live here.
and don’t even try the ‘hostile to religion’ BS with me.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“When these ilk start the wholesale murder of liberals, Democrats and minorities ”
if it comes to that, it ain’t gonna be wholesale. it’s gonna be retail, and it won’t go unanswered for very long.
“if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.”
I don’t know if you have read this thread but they were being excoriated here, in this thread. So don’t act like I am making something up. I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
and you answer that with bs comparisons. I get it you and the bigger you here don’t like Trump, but once again, according to cleek and wj there are only two choices. The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
That is just a fact. it doesn’t matter if the candidates profess to be Christian, their policies are not acceptable to evangelical Christians. They live here too.
More to my point, questioning the importance of their, and my, religious beliefs because we wont vote for Hillary is just wrong.
Somebody was picking on them, In fact pretty rudely.
“if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.”
I don’t know if you have read this thread but they were being excoriated here, in this thread. So don’t act like I am making something up. I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
and you answer that with bs comparisons. I get it you and the bigger you here don’t like Trump, but once again, according to cleek and wj there are only two choices. The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
That is just a fact. it doesn’t matter if the candidates profess to be Christian, their policies are not acceptable to evangelical Christians. They live here too.
More to my point, questioning the importance of their, and my, religious beliefs because we wont vote for Hillary is just wrong.
Somebody was picking on them, In fact pretty rudely.
“if people don’t like clinton, they can vote for somebody else. nobody’s picking on them, or looking down on them, any more than anyone else is picked on or looked down on. far less than most, in fact.”
I don’t know if you have read this thread but they were being excoriated here, in this thread. So don’t act like I am making something up. I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
and you answer that with bs comparisons. I get it you and the bigger you here don’t like Trump, but once again, according to cleek and wj there are only two choices. The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
That is just a fact. it doesn’t matter if the candidates profess to be Christian, their policies are not acceptable to evangelical Christians. They live here too.
More to my point, questioning the importance of their, and my, religious beliefs because we wont vote for Hillary is just wrong.
Somebody was picking on them, In fact pretty rudely.
Marty,
I did not read your mind, I read your text. And quoted it using copy and paste. If “any” was a typo, it was your typo. So go prioritize your christian values and vote for the Libertarian as you have said you plan to. Last I checked he was not big on outlawing abortion, but your priorities are your priorities.
–TP
Marty,
I did not read your mind, I read your text. And quoted it using copy and paste. If “any” was a typo, it was your typo. So go prioritize your christian values and vote for the Libertarian as you have said you plan to. Last I checked he was not big on outlawing abortion, but your priorities are your priorities.
–TP
Marty,
I did not read your mind, I read your text. And quoted it using copy and paste. If “any” was a typo, it was your typo. So go prioritize your christian values and vote for the Libertarian as you have said you plan to. Last I checked he was not big on outlawing abortion, but your priorities are your priorities.
–TP
according to cleek and wj there are only two choices.
That’s not quite what I said. (Or, at least, not quite what I was trying to say.)
There are only two choices who have a chance of winning, of being elected. But if you consider it imperative that the country be governed by upright and moral men and women, then you cannot vote based on expedience. As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.
Mind *I* don’t take that view of voting. But those who have spent decades saying that they do take that view? I see no way to square their long proclaimed view with a vote for Trump. If you say that you, and those who follow you, must vote for the moral choice, then the “lesser evil” simply isn’t acceptable.
according to cleek and wj there are only two choices.
That’s not quite what I said. (Or, at least, not quite what I was trying to say.)
There are only two choices who have a chance of winning, of being elected. But if you consider it imperative that the country be governed by upright and moral men and women, then you cannot vote based on expedience. As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.
Mind *I* don’t take that view of voting. But those who have spent decades saying that they do take that view? I see no way to square their long proclaimed view with a vote for Trump. If you say that you, and those who follow you, must vote for the moral choice, then the “lesser evil” simply isn’t acceptable.
according to cleek and wj there are only two choices.
That’s not quite what I said. (Or, at least, not quite what I was trying to say.)
There are only two choices who have a chance of winning, of being elected. But if you consider it imperative that the country be governed by upright and moral men and women, then you cannot vote based on expedience. As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.
Mind *I* don’t take that view of voting. But those who have spent decades saying that they do take that view? I see no way to square their long proclaimed view with a vote for Trump. If you say that you, and those who follow you, must vote for the moral choice, then the “lesser evil” simply isn’t acceptable.
The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness. This was aimed primarily at Muslims* of course but since the party is also known for its antisemitism** that was two squirrels with one stone (So, Hitler could not be a true Austrian anymore given his vegan ways in later years?). I don’t know, if they got the idea from the Japanese trampling of the crucifix but it’s along the same lines.
Better don’t give the US Right any ideas (although some prominent RWers already demand mandatory Kristian(TM) education for all US residents).
*who would be only inconvenienced since the Holy Quran explicitly states that violating the food commandments under duress is not a sin.
**but do not call them antisemites: “We are not antisemites, we just can’t stand Jews!!!” Austrianity in a nutshell.
The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness. This was aimed primarily at Muslims* of course but since the party is also known for its antisemitism** that was two squirrels with one stone (So, Hitler could not be a true Austrian anymore given his vegan ways in later years?). I don’t know, if they got the idea from the Japanese trampling of the crucifix but it’s along the same lines.
Better don’t give the US Right any ideas (although some prominent RWers already demand mandatory Kristian(TM) education for all US residents).
*who would be only inconvenienced since the Holy Quran explicitly states that violating the food commandments under duress is not a sin.
**but do not call them antisemites: “We are not antisemites, we just can’t stand Jews!!!” Austrianity in a nutshell.
The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness. This was aimed primarily at Muslims* of course but since the party is also known for its antisemitism** that was two squirrels with one stone (So, Hitler could not be a true Austrian anymore given his vegan ways in later years?). I don’t know, if they got the idea from the Japanese trampling of the crucifix but it’s along the same lines.
Better don’t give the US Right any ideas (although some prominent RWers already demand mandatory Kristian(TM) education for all US residents).
*who would be only inconvenienced since the Holy Quran explicitly states that violating the food commandments under duress is not a sin.
**but do not call them antisemites: “We are not antisemites, we just can’t stand Jews!!!” Austrianity in a nutshell.
“As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.”
This is the core of the difference in what I believe, about evangelicals. As a moral issue, despite the personal sins of the candidate, they still have to look at the policy positions and decide which one, or party, supports their beliefs best.
For true evangelicals, in this country, every election is a compromise.
“As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.”
This is the core of the difference in what I believe, about evangelicals. As a moral issue, despite the personal sins of the candidate, they still have to look at the policy positions and decide which one, or party, supports their beliefs best.
For true evangelicals, in this country, every election is a compromise.
“As a moral issue, there can be no compromise.”
This is the core of the difference in what I believe, about evangelicals. As a moral issue, despite the personal sins of the candidate, they still have to look at the policy positions and decide which one, or party, supports their beliefs best.
For true evangelicals, in this country, every election is a compromise.
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
there is no fing other logical choice for them.
write in Roy Moore. write in Jesus.
or, don’t vote – that’s what the J.W.’s do, after all.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
theology is supposed to trump policy. that’s what they’ve always told us. they can’t possibly just set it aside, even for something as trivial as baking a cake. hellfire awaits those who assist sinners in their sinning !
god changed his mind on that, i guess.
and i’m free of having to care.
i’m set free to find a new illusion.
there is no fing other logical choice for them.
write in Roy Moore. write in Jesus.
or, don’t vote – that’s what the J.W.’s do, after all.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
theology is supposed to trump policy. that’s what they’ve always told us. they can’t possibly just set it aside, even for something as trivial as baking a cake. hellfire awaits those who assist sinners in their sinning !
god changed his mind on that, i guess.
and i’m free of having to care.
i’m set free to find a new illusion.
there is no fing other logical choice for them.
write in Roy Moore. write in Jesus.
or, don’t vote – that’s what the J.W.’s do, after all.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
theology is supposed to trump policy. that’s what they’ve always told us. they can’t possibly just set it aside, even for something as trivial as baking a cake. hellfire awaits those who assist sinners in their sinning !
god changed his mind on that, i guess.
and i’m free of having to care.
i’m set free to find a new illusion.
Yeah, I thought we were talking about supporting Trump, not failing to support Clinton. I also thought we were talking about what seems to be an inconsistent or contradictory political position, as opposed to engaging in excoriation. Where were the calls for the firing squads?
Yeah, I thought we were talking about supporting Trump, not failing to support Clinton. I also thought we were talking about what seems to be an inconsistent or contradictory political position, as opposed to engaging in excoriation. Where were the calls for the firing squads?
Yeah, I thought we were talking about supporting Trump, not failing to support Clinton. I also thought we were talking about what seems to be an inconsistent or contradictory political position, as opposed to engaging in excoriation. Where were the calls for the firing squads?
I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
cleek finds it hypocritical that people who claim to be motivated first and foremost by their religious principles would vote for Trump.
What is difficult to understand about that?
If you think cleek is being unfairly harsh toward evangelicals, perhaps consider that many of them believe cleek is going to hell.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly.
Also imprison Clinton and make China stop selling us stuff.
I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that. Maybe you can wise me up.
There was also nothing bullshit in my examples. If you want more, I can point to Quakers having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to start more wars. Ditto for Catholics in the Dorothy Day tradition.
Muslims get to pick based on which candidate is less likely to engage in secret surveillance of their places of worship, ban them from the country altogether, and fail to get their back when head-case lunatics threaten them with violence.
I can point to atheists, who incidentally are required to materially support religions they don’t believe in via the tax code, having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to suck up to the religious voters.
People of all kinds of religious, ethical, and plain old humanist traditions have to pick between which candidate is going to be least likely to throw the 40-plus percent of us who depend on some kind of public assistance under the bus.
How long of a list do you want?
Which of those things is of less consequence than the concerns that evangelicals regularly cite as their big problems?
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
Precisely.
And this country more than many, perhaps, because we’re so diverse.
I don’t care who evangelicals vote for. I’m not particularly bothered by the apparent contradiction of evangelicals voting for Trump, because they’re human beings and human beings are contradictory creatures. It seems to bug cleek more than it bugs me, and that’s his prerogative.
It is certainly not out of line IMO for him to point out that Trump personally is not somebody who would naturally attract evangelical support. Nor in fact is he proposing policies that are particularly evangelically Christian, or Christian of any tradition.
He’s a nationalist demagogue, with enough white nationalist in the mix to keep those folks interested.
I’m not seeing a lot of Jesus in Donald J Trump, personally.
A lot of evangelicals will vote for him because he has an (R) in front of his name. Many evangelicals will vote for him because they are frightened and disturbed by what they see as their, and the nation’s, future prospects, and he seems to appeal to people who are afraid. Some will vote for him because, in spite of their religious faith, they are in fact bigots and he appeals to that side of people.
And many evangelicals will vote for somebody else, because Trump is not somebody who would normally attract an evangelical voter on the merits.
if it’s a tough choice for them, I say welcome to the club.
I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
cleek finds it hypocritical that people who claim to be motivated first and foremost by their religious principles would vote for Trump.
What is difficult to understand about that?
If you think cleek is being unfairly harsh toward evangelicals, perhaps consider that many of them believe cleek is going to hell.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly.
Also imprison Clinton and make China stop selling us stuff.
I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that. Maybe you can wise me up.
There was also nothing bullshit in my examples. If you want more, I can point to Quakers having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to start more wars. Ditto for Catholics in the Dorothy Day tradition.
Muslims get to pick based on which candidate is less likely to engage in secret surveillance of their places of worship, ban them from the country altogether, and fail to get their back when head-case lunatics threaten them with violence.
I can point to atheists, who incidentally are required to materially support religions they don’t believe in via the tax code, having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to suck up to the religious voters.
People of all kinds of religious, ethical, and plain old humanist traditions have to pick between which candidate is going to be least likely to throw the 40-plus percent of us who depend on some kind of public assistance under the bus.
How long of a list do you want?
Which of those things is of less consequence than the concerns that evangelicals regularly cite as their big problems?
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
Precisely.
And this country more than many, perhaps, because we’re so diverse.
I don’t care who evangelicals vote for. I’m not particularly bothered by the apparent contradiction of evangelicals voting for Trump, because they’re human beings and human beings are contradictory creatures. It seems to bug cleek more than it bugs me, and that’s his prerogative.
It is certainly not out of line IMO for him to point out that Trump personally is not somebody who would naturally attract evangelical support. Nor in fact is he proposing policies that are particularly evangelically Christian, or Christian of any tradition.
He’s a nationalist demagogue, with enough white nationalist in the mix to keep those folks interested.
I’m not seeing a lot of Jesus in Donald J Trump, personally.
A lot of evangelicals will vote for him because he has an (R) in front of his name. Many evangelicals will vote for him because they are frightened and disturbed by what they see as their, and the nation’s, future prospects, and he seems to appeal to people who are afraid. Some will vote for him because, in spite of their religious faith, they are in fact bigots and he appeals to that side of people.
And many evangelicals will vote for somebody else, because Trump is not somebody who would normally attract an evangelical voter on the merits.
if it’s a tough choice for them, I say welcome to the club.
I was responding to people here criticizing them as hypocrites for voting for Trump, when there is no fing other logical choice for them.
cleek finds it hypocritical that people who claim to be motivated first and foremost by their religious principles would vote for Trump.
What is difficult to understand about that?
If you think cleek is being unfairly harsh toward evangelicals, perhaps consider that many of them believe cleek is going to hell.
The only one that represents them, from a policy pov, is Trump.
Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly.
Also imprison Clinton and make China stop selling us stuff.
I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that. Maybe you can wise me up.
There was also nothing bullshit in my examples. If you want more, I can point to Quakers having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to start more wars. Ditto for Catholics in the Dorothy Day tradition.
Muslims get to pick based on which candidate is less likely to engage in secret surveillance of their places of worship, ban them from the country altogether, and fail to get their back when head-case lunatics threaten them with violence.
I can point to atheists, who incidentally are required to materially support religions they don’t believe in via the tax code, having to pick between which candidate is in less of a hurry to suck up to the religious voters.
People of all kinds of religious, ethical, and plain old humanist traditions have to pick between which candidate is going to be least likely to throw the 40-plus percent of us who depend on some kind of public assistance under the bus.
How long of a list do you want?
Which of those things is of less consequence than the concerns that evangelicals regularly cite as their big problems?
For every person, in every country, every election is a compromise.
Precisely.
And this country more than many, perhaps, because we’re so diverse.
I don’t care who evangelicals vote for. I’m not particularly bothered by the apparent contradiction of evangelicals voting for Trump, because they’re human beings and human beings are contradictory creatures. It seems to bug cleek more than it bugs me, and that’s his prerogative.
It is certainly not out of line IMO for him to point out that Trump personally is not somebody who would naturally attract evangelical support. Nor in fact is he proposing policies that are particularly evangelically Christian, or Christian of any tradition.
He’s a nationalist demagogue, with enough white nationalist in the mix to keep those folks interested.
I’m not seeing a lot of Jesus in Donald J Trump, personally.
A lot of evangelicals will vote for him because he has an (R) in front of his name. Many evangelicals will vote for him because they are frightened and disturbed by what they see as their, and the nation’s, future prospects, and he seems to appeal to people who are afraid. Some will vote for him because, in spite of their religious faith, they are in fact bigots and he appeals to that side of people.
And many evangelicals will vote for somebody else, because Trump is not somebody who would normally attract an evangelical voter on the merits.
if it’s a tough choice for them, I say welcome to the club.
Sapient asked me some time back if I had heroes. No, but Chas Freeman is someone I find very interesting. Here is a long interview with him in the Nation. I wish he were running for President, though I don’t know his domestic views. He would probably make a great Secretary of State, as the article title suggests.
https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-man-who-should-be-secretary-of-state/
Sapient asked me some time back if I had heroes. No, but Chas Freeman is someone I find very interesting. Here is a long interview with him in the Nation. I wish he were running for President, though I don’t know his domestic views. He would probably make a great Secretary of State, as the article title suggests.
https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-man-who-should-be-secretary-of-state/
Sapient asked me some time back if I had heroes. No, but Chas Freeman is someone I find very interesting. Here is a long interview with him in the Nation. I wish he were running for President, though I don’t know his domestic views. He would probably make a great Secretary of State, as the article title suggests.
https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-man-who-should-be-secretary-of-state/
here’s someone else making the same point i’m trying to make, but with quotations and capital letters!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/10/14/how-religious-right-embraced-donald-trump-and-lost-its-moral-authority/zmnffYc0elZ5cdGHbLrBVL/story.html
here’s someone else making the same point i’m trying to make, but with quotations and capital letters!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/10/14/how-religious-right-embraced-donald-trump-and-lost-its-moral-authority/zmnffYc0elZ5cdGHbLrBVL/story.html
here’s someone else making the same point i’m trying to make, but with quotations and capital letters!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/10/14/how-religious-right-embraced-donald-trump-and-lost-its-moral-authority/zmnffYc0elZ5cdGHbLrBVL/story.html
Donald,
That was a good read. Thx.
Donald,
That was a good read. Thx.
Donald,
That was a good read. Thx.
Regarding the above referenced so-called law enforcement officer David Clarke and his torches and pitchforks:
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/787114903337365506
Turns out he has the lethal equipment too, but complains tweet-wise like a two-year about the rule of law that makes him wait a few days to procure military-grade weaponry.
Considering the thinly-veiled reasons and intentions for which he thinks he needs the weaponry — to kill his fellow Americans who commit the sin of governing — why was he granted a license at all?
He’s probably Christian as the day is long.
Two words, David.
Fuck you.
Regarding the above referenced so-called law enforcement officer David Clarke and his torches and pitchforks:
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/787114903337365506
Turns out he has the lethal equipment too, but complains tweet-wise like a two-year about the rule of law that makes him wait a few days to procure military-grade weaponry.
Considering the thinly-veiled reasons and intentions for which he thinks he needs the weaponry — to kill his fellow Americans who commit the sin of governing — why was he granted a license at all?
He’s probably Christian as the day is long.
Two words, David.
Fuck you.
Regarding the above referenced so-called law enforcement officer David Clarke and his torches and pitchforks:
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/787114903337365506
Turns out he has the lethal equipment too, but complains tweet-wise like a two-year about the rule of law that makes him wait a few days to procure military-grade weaponry.
Considering the thinly-veiled reasons and intentions for which he thinks he needs the weaponry — to kill his fellow Americans who commit the sin of governing — why was he granted a license at all?
He’s probably Christian as the day is long.
Two words, David.
Fuck you.
Thanks bobbyp. And now an article by Chas Freeman himself.
https://lobelog.com/the-middle-east-and-the-next-administration/
I suspect a few people won’t get past the opening paragraphs where he bashes both Trump and Clinton, but you should. The heart of the piece is where he goes step by step through what we have been doing wrong in the Middle East. I like the list of the twelve wars he says are going on in Syria, where we are involved in five or six, on opposite sides.
Thanks bobbyp. And now an article by Chas Freeman himself.
https://lobelog.com/the-middle-east-and-the-next-administration/
I suspect a few people won’t get past the opening paragraphs where he bashes both Trump and Clinton, but you should. The heart of the piece is where he goes step by step through what we have been doing wrong in the Middle East. I like the list of the twelve wars he says are going on in Syria, where we are involved in five or six, on opposite sides.
Thanks bobbyp. And now an article by Chas Freeman himself.
https://lobelog.com/the-middle-east-and-the-next-administration/
I suspect a few people won’t get past the opening paragraphs where he bashes both Trump and Clinton, but you should. The heart of the piece is where he goes step by step through what we have been doing wrong in the Middle East. I like the list of the twelve wars he says are going on in Syria, where we are involved in five or six, on opposite sides.
Donald, that Chas Freeman interview is fascinating. What an impressive guy, and what a tragedy he hasn’t been able to go on meaningfully contributing his expertise.
Donald, that Chas Freeman interview is fascinating. What an impressive guy, and what a tragedy he hasn’t been able to go on meaningfully contributing his expertise.
Donald, that Chas Freeman interview is fascinating. What an impressive guy, and what a tragedy he hasn’t been able to go on meaningfully contributing his expertise.
I’m never sure just what impact (if any!) the recommendations on comments to articles have. (Any articles, or blog posts, anywhere that allows them.) But I tend to figure, “Well, it can’t hurt….”
That said, I would suggest that anyone here who liked the Freeman article go to the Comments, both of which are quite positive, and give them a thumbs up**. It can’t hurt.
** Just now, they only had 3-4 of those. Which suggests that we haven’t been doing that.
I’m never sure just what impact (if any!) the recommendations on comments to articles have. (Any articles, or blog posts, anywhere that allows them.) But I tend to figure, “Well, it can’t hurt….”
That said, I would suggest that anyone here who liked the Freeman article go to the Comments, both of which are quite positive, and give them a thumbs up**. It can’t hurt.
** Just now, they only had 3-4 of those. Which suggests that we haven’t been doing that.
I’m never sure just what impact (if any!) the recommendations on comments to articles have. (Any articles, or blog posts, anywhere that allows them.) But I tend to figure, “Well, it can’t hurt….”
That said, I would suggest that anyone here who liked the Freeman article go to the Comments, both of which are quite positive, and give them a thumbs up**. It can’t hurt.
** Just now, they only had 3-4 of those. Which suggests that we haven’t been doing that.
Could it be that what nasty liberals have been saying for decades about the low-rent economy much of corporate America has been imposing on the workforce is true?
Is someone seeing the light, like maybe common sense was discovered yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/upshot/how-did-walmart-get-cleaner-stores-and-higher-sales-it-paid-its-people-more.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
And a jackass like Donald Trump gets the credit and votes for bringing it up, even though I suspect he believes WalMart’s workforce, many of whom are probably in his camp, are a bunch of overpaid losers, perhaps even retarded, and certainly unattractive as groping prospects.
Crap on toast.
Big piles of crap. Hold the toast.
Could it be that what nasty liberals have been saying for decades about the low-rent economy much of corporate America has been imposing on the workforce is true?
Is someone seeing the light, like maybe common sense was discovered yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/upshot/how-did-walmart-get-cleaner-stores-and-higher-sales-it-paid-its-people-more.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
And a jackass like Donald Trump gets the credit and votes for bringing it up, even though I suspect he believes WalMart’s workforce, many of whom are probably in his camp, are a bunch of overpaid losers, perhaps even retarded, and certainly unattractive as groping prospects.
Crap on toast.
Big piles of crap. Hold the toast.
Could it be that what nasty liberals have been saying for decades about the low-rent economy much of corporate America has been imposing on the workforce is true?
Is someone seeing the light, like maybe common sense was discovered yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/upshot/how-did-walmart-get-cleaner-stores-and-higher-sales-it-paid-its-people-more.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
And a jackass like Donald Trump gets the credit and votes for bringing it up, even though I suspect he believes WalMart’s workforce, many of whom are probably in his camp, are a bunch of overpaid losers, perhaps even retarded, and certainly unattractive as groping prospects.
Crap on toast.
Big piles of crap. Hold the toast.
credit to eschaton on that link.
credit to eschaton on that link.
credit to eschaton on that link.
Yes, the Freeman article (haven’t read the second yet) was like a breath of fresh air for its lucidity.
Yes, the Freeman article (haven’t read the second yet) was like a breath of fresh air for its lucidity.
Yes, the Freeman article (haven’t read the second yet) was like a breath of fresh air for its lucidity.
One ofther thought on Freeman. I don’t think he should be Secretary of State. Not at all.
Given his comments about the National Security Council (and about the folks who seem likely to staff it in the next administration) it would probably be better to have him driving that instead. Otherwise, the problems that he identifies will just keep on keeping on.
One ofther thought on Freeman. I don’t think he should be Secretary of State. Not at all.
Given his comments about the National Security Council (and about the folks who seem likely to staff it in the next administration) it would probably be better to have him driving that instead. Otherwise, the problems that he identifies will just keep on keeping on.
One ofther thought on Freeman. I don’t think he should be Secretary of State. Not at all.
Given his comments about the National Security Council (and about the folks who seem likely to staff it in the next administration) it would probably be better to have him driving that instead. Otherwise, the problems that he identifies will just keep on keeping on.
The issue of 9/11 arose, of course, with an upsurge of Islamophobia in the United States and a sense of betrayal in Saudi Arabia that the United States had been a false friend and turned on them….
Saudi Arabia thinks the US is a false friend who turned on them?
Whaaa ?
Where were the majority of the 9/11 creeps from? And the founders and founders of alQ?
The issue of 9/11 arose, of course, with an upsurge of Islamophobia in the United States and a sense of betrayal in Saudi Arabia that the United States had been a false friend and turned on them….
Saudi Arabia thinks the US is a false friend who turned on them?
Whaaa ?
Where were the majority of the 9/11 creeps from? And the founders and founders of alQ?
The issue of 9/11 arose, of course, with an upsurge of Islamophobia in the United States and a sense of betrayal in Saudi Arabia that the United States had been a false friend and turned on them….
Saudi Arabia thinks the US is a false friend who turned on them?
Whaaa ?
Where were the majority of the 9/11 creeps from? And the founders and founders of alQ?
Founders and funders.
Founders and funders.
Founders and funders.
Freeman was an ambassador to the Saudis, so he channels their pov in that passage while understanding that they have and are supporting jihadists and killing civilians in Yemen. And yes, to sooth their delicate feelings both political parties lean over backwards to arm them and adopt their viewpoint.
I don’t doubt the Saudis feel as Freeman describes. There is a certain masochistic tail wagging dog quality to our alliances in that part of the world, not that we don’t voluntarily go along with it.
Freeman was an ambassador to the Saudis, so he channels their pov in that passage while understanding that they have and are supporting jihadists and killing civilians in Yemen. And yes, to sooth their delicate feelings both political parties lean over backwards to arm them and adopt their viewpoint.
I don’t doubt the Saudis feel as Freeman describes. There is a certain masochistic tail wagging dog quality to our alliances in that part of the world, not that we don’t voluntarily go along with it.
Freeman was an ambassador to the Saudis, so he channels their pov in that passage while understanding that they have and are supporting jihadists and killing civilians in Yemen. And yes, to sooth their delicate feelings both political parties lean over backwards to arm them and adopt their viewpoint.
I don’t doubt the Saudis feel as Freeman describes. There is a certain masochistic tail wagging dog quality to our alliances in that part of the world, not that we don’t voluntarily go along with it.
Cut this crap out. At least wait until we can see the whites of their eyes. Let them start it, because they are going to:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-county-hq-firebombed/
Cut this crap out. At least wait until we can see the whites of their eyes. Let them start it, because they are going to:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-county-hq-firebombed/
Cut this crap out. At least wait until we can see the whites of their eyes. Let them start it, because they are going to:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-county-hq-firebombed/
It’s a Pat Buchanan enterprise. Ya know, lock and load.
It’s a Pat Buchanan enterprise. Ya know, lock and load.
It’s a Pat Buchanan enterprise. Ya know, lock and load.
Did they find any polish army uniforms there?
Did they find any polish army uniforms there?
Did they find any polish army uniforms there?
Dreher goes off half cocked all the time. Here he sort of grudgingly acknowledges we don’t know yet who did that bombing. But I am sure most lefties condemn it no matter who is responsible.
The mad bombers on the right plan things like this–
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/15/kansas_terrorists_wanted_anti_muslim_attack_in_garden_city_to_end_in_bloodbath.html
Dreher goes off half cocked all the time. Here he sort of grudgingly acknowledges we don’t know yet who did that bombing. But I am sure most lefties condemn it no matter who is responsible.
The mad bombers on the right plan things like this–
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/15/kansas_terrorists_wanted_anti_muslim_attack_in_garden_city_to_end_in_bloodbath.html
Dreher goes off half cocked all the time. Here he sort of grudgingly acknowledges we don’t know yet who did that bombing. But I am sure most lefties condemn it no matter who is responsible.
The mad bombers on the right plan things like this–
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/15/kansas_terrorists_wanted_anti_muslim_attack_in_garden_city_to_end_in_bloodbath.html
Religious morality? Economic ‘creative destruction? the forgotten plight of ‘real amerikans’?
Nope.
Same old. Same old.
Religious morality? Economic ‘creative destruction? the forgotten plight of ‘real amerikans’?
Nope.
Same old. Same old.
Religious morality? Economic ‘creative destruction? the forgotten plight of ‘real amerikans’?
Nope.
Same old. Same old.
Dreher on the firebombing:
“I tend to be skeptical as a precautionary measure when things like this happen, simply because the left has a bad habit of staging this kind of thing to get sympathy”
Huh?!?
Dreher on the firebombing:
“I tend to be skeptical as a precautionary measure when things like this happen, simply because the left has a bad habit of staging this kind of thing to get sympathy”
Huh?!?
Dreher on the firebombing:
“I tend to be skeptical as a precautionary measure when things like this happen, simply because the left has a bad habit of staging this kind of thing to get sympathy”
Huh?!?
Hartmut:
“The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness.”
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Hartmut:
“The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness.”
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Hartmut:
“The Austrian FPÖ actually proposed to make eating pork mandatory as a precondition for citizenship. To be precise they wanted to require everyone to eat a Wiener Schnitzel in front of witnesses once a year to prove their true Austrianness.”
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Drudge is now running pics of Obama’s big black suckable cock that Republicans are just dying to get their dirty mouths around:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-new-libertines.html
Nice country you’ve created for us, you pigfucker Republicans, you asshole Christians.
ISIS is starting to look like a viable alternative conservative political party in America.
Drudge is now running pics of Obama’s big black suckable cock that Republicans are just dying to get their dirty mouths around:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-new-libertines.html
Nice country you’ve created for us, you pigfucker Republicans, you asshole Christians.
ISIS is starting to look like a viable alternative conservative political party in America.
Drudge is now running pics of Obama’s big black suckable cock that Republicans are just dying to get their dirty mouths around:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-new-libertines.html
Nice country you’ve created for us, you pigfucker Republicans, you asshole Christians.
ISIS is starting to look like a viable alternative conservative political party in America.
Hey look, operations are starting against ISIS in Mosul:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/10/16/the-battle-to-liberate-mosul-has-begun-updated-and-dabiq-has-been-liberated-too/
Honey, take Donald Trump’s Christian dick out of your mouth and catch up on current events.
Oh, it’s going to get worse and so am I. There’s still three weeks to go with these vermin.
Hey look, operations are starting against ISIS in Mosul:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/10/16/the-battle-to-liberate-mosul-has-begun-updated-and-dabiq-has-been-liberated-too/
Honey, take Donald Trump’s Christian dick out of your mouth and catch up on current events.
Oh, it’s going to get worse and so am I. There’s still three weeks to go with these vermin.
Hey look, operations are starting against ISIS in Mosul:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/10/16/the-battle-to-liberate-mosul-has-begun-updated-and-dabiq-has-been-liberated-too/
Honey, take Donald Trump’s Christian dick out of your mouth and catch up on current events.
Oh, it’s going to get worse and so am I. There’s still three weeks to go with these vermin.
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.
But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.
“But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.”
Interesting. My wife lived/studied in Germany and Austria half a century ago, and is very clear on the (then?) distinction between “Wiener Schnitzel” (veal) and “Schweiner Schnitzel” (pork).
But languages and customs evolve . . .
“But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.”
Interesting. My wife lived/studied in Germany and Austria half a century ago, and is very clear on the (then?) distinction between “Wiener Schnitzel” (veal) and “Schweiner Schnitzel” (pork).
But languages and customs evolve . . .
“But Wiener Schnitzel is veal, nicht wahr?
Nope, in Europe it is breaded pork. Veal would be far too expensive for this staple food.”
Interesting. My wife lived/studied in Germany and Austria half a century ago, and is very clear on the (then?) distinction between “Wiener Schnitzel” (veal) and “Schweiner Schnitzel” (pork).
But languages and customs evolve . . .
Wikipedia indeed claims that Wiener Schnitzel is veal but I cannot remember ever having encountered something under that name at least in Germany that was not unambiguously pork.
And the purpose (explicitly stated as such by the proponents) would be lost since neither Jews nor Muslims have any taboo on veal (at least if not boiled in its mother’s milk).
Vienna sausage would be much more useful since (as a mix of pork and beef) it would work against both semites and Hindus.
So, somewhere there must be someone misinformed (and that might be me).
On the other hand, the concept of ersatz is genuinely Austrian (most German (derogatory) terms for that were originally Austrian proper nouns, e.g. Talmi, Strass or Gablonzer*).
*original home of Swarovski btw
Wikipedia indeed claims that Wiener Schnitzel is veal but I cannot remember ever having encountered something under that name at least in Germany that was not unambiguously pork.
And the purpose (explicitly stated as such by the proponents) would be lost since neither Jews nor Muslims have any taboo on veal (at least if not boiled in its mother’s milk).
Vienna sausage would be much more useful since (as a mix of pork and beef) it would work against both semites and Hindus.
So, somewhere there must be someone misinformed (and that might be me).
On the other hand, the concept of ersatz is genuinely Austrian (most German (derogatory) terms for that were originally Austrian proper nouns, e.g. Talmi, Strass or Gablonzer*).
*original home of Swarovski btw
Wikipedia indeed claims that Wiener Schnitzel is veal but I cannot remember ever having encountered something under that name at least in Germany that was not unambiguously pork.
And the purpose (explicitly stated as such by the proponents) would be lost since neither Jews nor Muslims have any taboo on veal (at least if not boiled in its mother’s milk).
Vienna sausage would be much more useful since (as a mix of pork and beef) it would work against both semites and Hindus.
So, somewhere there must be someone misinformed (and that might be me).
On the other hand, the concept of ersatz is genuinely Austrian (most German (derogatory) terms for that were originally Austrian proper nouns, e.g. Talmi, Strass or Gablonzer*).
*original home of Swarovski btw
I did not see dr ngo’s post before posting myself.
At least in Germany the distinction between (Schweine)schnitzel and Wiener Schnitzel would be that the latter must be breaded and any Schnitzel breaded is known as Schnitzel Wiener Art (Vienna style). If you just ordered a(ny) Schnitzel, you would likely be asked, if you want one paniert (breaded) or not and the former would be referred to as Wiener.
My guess is that there was an original breaded veal recipe but that the term got expanded to any breaded meat when it got into the mass market (that in Europe is absolutely dominated by pork not bovine meat). I think poultry Schnitzel entered the market during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) and I can’t remember it being around when I was a kid (then poultry usually occurred in its natural form, i.e. recognizably birdy in origin).
I did not see dr ngo’s post before posting myself.
At least in Germany the distinction between (Schweine)schnitzel and Wiener Schnitzel would be that the latter must be breaded and any Schnitzel breaded is known as Schnitzel Wiener Art (Vienna style). If you just ordered a(ny) Schnitzel, you would likely be asked, if you want one paniert (breaded) or not and the former would be referred to as Wiener.
My guess is that there was an original breaded veal recipe but that the term got expanded to any breaded meat when it got into the mass market (that in Europe is absolutely dominated by pork not bovine meat). I think poultry Schnitzel entered the market during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) and I can’t remember it being around when I was a kid (then poultry usually occurred in its natural form, i.e. recognizably birdy in origin).
I did not see dr ngo’s post before posting myself.
At least in Germany the distinction between (Schweine)schnitzel and Wiener Schnitzel would be that the latter must be breaded and any Schnitzel breaded is known as Schnitzel Wiener Art (Vienna style). If you just ordered a(ny) Schnitzel, you would likely be asked, if you want one paniert (breaded) or not and the former would be referred to as Wiener.
My guess is that there was an original breaded veal recipe but that the term got expanded to any breaded meat when it got into the mass market (that in Europe is absolutely dominated by pork not bovine meat). I think poultry Schnitzel entered the market during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) and I can’t remember it being around when I was a kid (then poultry usually occurred in its natural form, i.e. recognizably birdy in origin).
I suspect it’s one of those “local brand” terms that the EU hasn’t gotten around to strictly regulating yet.
But if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.
I suspect it’s one of those “local brand” terms that the EU hasn’t gotten around to strictly regulating yet.
But if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.
I suspect it’s one of those “local brand” terms that the EU hasn’t gotten around to strictly regulating yet.
But if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.
quoting myself: “if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.”
If that is the price one must pay for EU citizenship, sign me up! And a nice lager also, bitte?
quoting myself: “if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.”
If that is the price one must pay for EU citizenship, sign me up! And a nice lager also, bitte?
quoting myself: “if you go to Wien, and order Wiener Schnitzel (particularly in that little restaurant next to the central cathedral) you will DEFINITELY get veal.”
If that is the price one must pay for EU citizenship, sign me up! And a nice lager also, bitte?
Just finished “Wise Blood” by Flannery O’Conner.
Sinners and saints. Both at the same time.
Near the end, Mrs Flood, the landlord, has some thoughts on renter Hazel Motes, who has blinded himself in his struggle with faith:
“He got money from the government every month for something the war has done to his insides and so he was not obliged to work. The Landlady had always been impressed with the ability to pay. When she found a stream of wealth, she followed it to its source and before long, it was not distinguishable from her own. She felt that the money she paid out in taxes returned to all the worthless pockets in the world, that the government not only sent it to foreign niggers and a-rabs, but wasted it at home on blind fools and on every idiot who could sign his name on a card. She felt justified in getting anything at all back that she could, money or anything else, as if she had once owned the earth and been dispossessed of it. She couldn’t look at anything steadily without wanting it, and what provoked her most was the thought that there might be something valuable hidden near her, something she couldn’t see.”
She ends up proposing marriage to Hazel Motes because, even now blinded, he looks like someone who see what she can’t.
Written originally in 1949.
A Trump supporter that woman.
Just finished “Wise Blood” by Flannery O’Conner.
Sinners and saints. Both at the same time.
Near the end, Mrs Flood, the landlord, has some thoughts on renter Hazel Motes, who has blinded himself in his struggle with faith:
“He got money from the government every month for something the war has done to his insides and so he was not obliged to work. The Landlady had always been impressed with the ability to pay. When she found a stream of wealth, she followed it to its source and before long, it was not distinguishable from her own. She felt that the money she paid out in taxes returned to all the worthless pockets in the world, that the government not only sent it to foreign niggers and a-rabs, but wasted it at home on blind fools and on every idiot who could sign his name on a card. She felt justified in getting anything at all back that she could, money or anything else, as if she had once owned the earth and been dispossessed of it. She couldn’t look at anything steadily without wanting it, and what provoked her most was the thought that there might be something valuable hidden near her, something she couldn’t see.”
She ends up proposing marriage to Hazel Motes because, even now blinded, he looks like someone who see what she can’t.
Written originally in 1949.
A Trump supporter that woman.
Just finished “Wise Blood” by Flannery O’Conner.
Sinners and saints. Both at the same time.
Near the end, Mrs Flood, the landlord, has some thoughts on renter Hazel Motes, who has blinded himself in his struggle with faith:
“He got money from the government every month for something the war has done to his insides and so he was not obliged to work. The Landlady had always been impressed with the ability to pay. When she found a stream of wealth, she followed it to its source and before long, it was not distinguishable from her own. She felt that the money she paid out in taxes returned to all the worthless pockets in the world, that the government not only sent it to foreign niggers and a-rabs, but wasted it at home on blind fools and on every idiot who could sign his name on a card. She felt justified in getting anything at all back that she could, money or anything else, as if she had once owned the earth and been dispossessed of it. She couldn’t look at anything steadily without wanting it, and what provoked her most was the thought that there might be something valuable hidden near her, something she couldn’t see.”
She ends up proposing marriage to Hazel Motes because, even now blinded, he looks like someone who see what she can’t.
Written originally in 1949.
A Trump supporter that woman.
“Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly. … I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that.”
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
“Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly. … I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that.”
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
“Trump’s policies as far as I can tell seem to be build a wall, keep Muslims out, eliminate corporate taxes, magically annihilate ISIS, and win bigly. … I’m not seeing anything resembling evangelical Christianity in any of that.”
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).
Racism, money worship, maximum war and love of winning sounds exactly like the evangelical Christianity I was raised in.
I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
“I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).”
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
“I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).”
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
“I’m about 80/20 on this being serious/sarcasm, john (not mccain).”
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
I would take your word for it that they are. I just wasn’t sure what your actual experience was and had some doubt that you were being literal.
I’d guess there are some evangelicals who aren’t into the things you listed and who follow the peace-loving, non-materialistic, inclusive version of Jesus. So I just wasn’t completely sure how to take your comment.
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
I would take your word for it that they are. I just wasn’t sure what your actual experience was and had some doubt that you were being literal.
I’d guess there are some evangelicals who aren’t into the things you listed and who follow the peace-loving, non-materialistic, inclusive version of Jesus. So I just wasn’t completely sure how to take your comment.
Not sarcasm, merely my own personal experience. Southern Baptists are evangelicals, are they not?
I would take your word for it that they are. I just wasn’t sure what your actual experience was and had some doubt that you were being literal.
I’d guess there are some evangelicals who aren’t into the things you listed and who follow the peace-loving, non-materialistic, inclusive version of Jesus. So I just wasn’t completely sure how to take your comment.
There certainly do exist Christians that fit your description. I’m not sure there are very many evangelicals that do. Fred Clark still identifies himself as an evangelical, but you’ll notice he’s not on the evangelical channel at patheos.
There certainly do exist Christians that fit your description. I’m not sure there are very many evangelicals that do. Fred Clark still identifies himself as an evangelical, but you’ll notice he’s not on the evangelical channel at patheos.
There certainly do exist Christians that fit your description. I’m not sure there are very many evangelicals that do. Fred Clark still identifies himself as an evangelical, but you’ll notice he’s not on the evangelical channel at patheos.
Good. Make em unaffordable:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/westside-armory-pre-hillary-sale
Cocks, bizarro Jesus, and Semiautomatics.
What a bunch of Halloween ghouls.
I’ve seen better inheritors of the earth described on gas station bathroom walls.
There are plenty of decent people in this country of all backgrounds and political affiliations.
These ain’t the ones.
Good. Make em unaffordable:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/westside-armory-pre-hillary-sale
Cocks, bizarro Jesus, and Semiautomatics.
What a bunch of Halloween ghouls.
I’ve seen better inheritors of the earth described on gas station bathroom walls.
There are plenty of decent people in this country of all backgrounds and political affiliations.
These ain’t the ones.
Good. Make em unaffordable:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/westside-armory-pre-hillary-sale
Cocks, bizarro Jesus, and Semiautomatics.
What a bunch of Halloween ghouls.
I’ve seen better inheritors of the earth described on gas station bathroom walls.
There are plenty of decent people in this country of all backgrounds and political affiliations.
These ain’t the ones.
Over here in Germany we have what is in essence the evangelical equivalent of nuns (Diakonissen). Among them one can find both the selfless helpers and those that would only need to switch their uniform to be entrusted with running concentration camps. And the last part is not hyperbole. It would not be difficult to find some that did the reverse change in 1945. My mother (born 1943) had some unpleasant experiences with them when she grew up and became later the target of their celibate envy when my oldest brother was born in a hospital where the nurses were of their order.
Over here in Germany we have what is in essence the evangelical equivalent of nuns (Diakonissen). Among them one can find both the selfless helpers and those that would only need to switch their uniform to be entrusted with running concentration camps. And the last part is not hyperbole. It would not be difficult to find some that did the reverse change in 1945. My mother (born 1943) had some unpleasant experiences with them when she grew up and became later the target of their celibate envy when my oldest brother was born in a hospital where the nurses were of their order.
Over here in Germany we have what is in essence the evangelical equivalent of nuns (Diakonissen). Among them one can find both the selfless helpers and those that would only need to switch their uniform to be entrusted with running concentration camps. And the last part is not hyperbole. It would not be difficult to find some that did the reverse change in 1945. My mother (born 1943) had some unpleasant experiences with them when she grew up and became later the target of their celibate envy when my oldest brother was born in a hospital where the nurses were of their order.
Has the GOP backed itself into a corner?
Has the GOP backed itself into a corner?
Has the GOP backed itself into a corner?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-donald-trumps-echo-chamber-of-conspiracies-grievances-and-vitriol/2016/10/16/1c3c6a72-921e-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_echochamber-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Make America Great Again!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-donald-trumps-echo-chamber-of-conspiracies-grievances-and-vitriol/2016/10/16/1c3c6a72-921e-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_echochamber-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Make America Great Again!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-donald-trumps-echo-chamber-of-conspiracies-grievances-and-vitriol/2016/10/16/1c3c6a72-921e-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_echochamber-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Make America Great Again!
The reactionary fascist conservative pig pestilence is a world wide phenomenon, infecting nearly every country.
You dare to disagree with them and it’s Lock Em Up time for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/opposing-brexit-should-be-made-an-act-of-treason-punishable-by-l/
That semiautomatic gun sale in Vegas looks pretty inviting. Maybe middle of the road to left Brits could mail order an arsenal to fight the far Right in Britain as well.
The reactionary fascist conservative pig pestilence is a world wide phenomenon, infecting nearly every country.
You dare to disagree with them and it’s Lock Em Up time for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/opposing-brexit-should-be-made-an-act-of-treason-punishable-by-l/
That semiautomatic gun sale in Vegas looks pretty inviting. Maybe middle of the road to left Brits could mail order an arsenal to fight the far Right in Britain as well.
The reactionary fascist conservative pig pestilence is a world wide phenomenon, infecting nearly every country.
You dare to disagree with them and it’s Lock Em Up time for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/opposing-brexit-should-be-made-an-act-of-treason-punishable-by-l/
That semiautomatic gun sale in Vegas looks pretty inviting. Maybe middle of the road to left Brits could mail order an arsenal to fight the far Right in Britain as well.
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
Having actually been a poll worker for the primaries this year, I’d** say it’s not likely at all. We check the ballot boxes are empty before locking them and starting for the day. And run the count report on the scanner, to confirm that it reads zero. (Copy kept with the stuff returned to the central voting office.)
At the end of the day, we count the number of ballots in the box, before sealing them up to be delivered to the central counting area. We check the number of people who signed in against the ballot count. We also run a report which gives the count (checked against the manual count of the number of ballots) and the number of votes for each individual and for or against each proposition on the ballot. A copy of that report is posted outside the polling place — so anyone can check it against what the county (or state) later reports.
That’s worth repeating. There’s a publicly posted report at each polling place on how many votes everybody got for that precinct. So anyone wanting to change the results up stream, as the counts are done for the county or state, would have to go through and make sure all those were changed as well.
The ballots are delivered to the central counting area. As is the thumb drive with the count made as the ballots were scanned into the ballot box during the day.
Everything, including the delivery, involves two people. Essentially, to bugger the count, you’d have to involve pretty much all of the workers at the polling place, plus someone who could mess with the counting software in the voting machine as well.
And, you’d have to do that at multiple polling places, unless you think the state-wide vote will be close enough that changing half a hundred votes will make a difference.
So no, I don’t see a way to rig the vote on any scale. Just way too many checks and ablances built into the system to make it feasible. Not to mention the impossibility of keeping a sufficiently vast conspiracy secret.
I understand that other places do their voting and vote counting differently. But that just makes rigging the results harder, because you have to arrange to mess with multiple different voting systems, not just recycle the same technique (if you can come up with on) across the country.
** I think I’m one of those conservatives. We can agrue seperately about whether or not I am . . . and what the criteria are for being a “real conservative”. 😉
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
Having actually been a poll worker for the primaries this year, I’d** say it’s not likely at all. We check the ballot boxes are empty before locking them and starting for the day. And run the count report on the scanner, to confirm that it reads zero. (Copy kept with the stuff returned to the central voting office.)
At the end of the day, we count the number of ballots in the box, before sealing them up to be delivered to the central counting area. We check the number of people who signed in against the ballot count. We also run a report which gives the count (checked against the manual count of the number of ballots) and the number of votes for each individual and for or against each proposition on the ballot. A copy of that report is posted outside the polling place — so anyone can check it against what the county (or state) later reports.
That’s worth repeating. There’s a publicly posted report at each polling place on how many votes everybody got for that precinct. So anyone wanting to change the results up stream, as the counts are done for the county or state, would have to go through and make sure all those were changed as well.
The ballots are delivered to the central counting area. As is the thumb drive with the count made as the ballots were scanned into the ballot box during the day.
Everything, including the delivery, involves two people. Essentially, to bugger the count, you’d have to involve pretty much all of the workers at the polling place, plus someone who could mess with the counting software in the voting machine as well.
And, you’d have to do that at multiple polling places, unless you think the state-wide vote will be close enough that changing half a hundred votes will make a difference.
So no, I don’t see a way to rig the vote on any scale. Just way too many checks and ablances built into the system to make it feasible. Not to mention the impossibility of keeping a sufficiently vast conspiracy secret.
I understand that other places do their voting and vote counting differently. But that just makes rigging the results harder, because you have to arrange to mess with multiple different voting systems, not just recycle the same technique (if you can come up with on) across the country.
** I think I’m one of those conservatives. We can agrue seperately about whether or not I am . . . and what the criteria are for being a “real conservative”. 😉
so, conservative ObWi people… you all-in with the “election is rigged” thing that the professional GOP has recently adopted ?
Having actually been a poll worker for the primaries this year, I’d** say it’s not likely at all. We check the ballot boxes are empty before locking them and starting for the day. And run the count report on the scanner, to confirm that it reads zero. (Copy kept with the stuff returned to the central voting office.)
At the end of the day, we count the number of ballots in the box, before sealing them up to be delivered to the central counting area. We check the number of people who signed in against the ballot count. We also run a report which gives the count (checked against the manual count of the number of ballots) and the number of votes for each individual and for or against each proposition on the ballot. A copy of that report is posted outside the polling place — so anyone can check it against what the county (or state) later reports.
That’s worth repeating. There’s a publicly posted report at each polling place on how many votes everybody got for that precinct. So anyone wanting to change the results up stream, as the counts are done for the county or state, would have to go through and make sure all those were changed as well.
The ballots are delivered to the central counting area. As is the thumb drive with the count made as the ballots were scanned into the ballot box during the day.
Everything, including the delivery, involves two people. Essentially, to bugger the count, you’d have to involve pretty much all of the workers at the polling place, plus someone who could mess with the counting software in the voting machine as well.
And, you’d have to do that at multiple polling places, unless you think the state-wide vote will be close enough that changing half a hundred votes will make a difference.
So no, I don’t see a way to rig the vote on any scale. Just way too many checks and ablances built into the system to make it feasible. Not to mention the impossibility of keeping a sufficiently vast conspiracy secret.
I understand that other places do their voting and vote counting differently. But that just makes rigging the results harder, because you have to arrange to mess with multiple different voting systems, not just recycle the same technique (if you can come up with on) across the country.
** I think I’m one of those conservatives. We can agrue seperately about whether or not I am . . . and what the criteria are for being a “real conservative”. 😉
John McCain, that unAmerican f*ck, just guaranteed an ungovernable country and the violent overthrow of the United States government:
https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/788061070212685828/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
You wanna run a country like that? It will be taken away from you by every means necessary.
F*ck off.
John McCain, that unAmerican f*ck, just guaranteed an ungovernable country and the violent overthrow of the United States government:
https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/788061070212685828/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
You wanna run a country like that? It will be taken away from you by every means necessary.
F*ck off.
John McCain, that unAmerican f*ck, just guaranteed an ungovernable country and the violent overthrow of the United States government:
https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/788061070212685828/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
You wanna run a country like that? It will be taken away from you by every means necessary.
F*ck off.
wj,
that may be true for paper ballots. Not so much with electronic voting machines with no paper ballot backup.
people easily assume new technology is cheap, fast, convenient and foolproof. A quick glance at just about any new wave techno gadgetry quickly show that to be one assumption too far.
wj,
that may be true for paper ballots. Not so much with electronic voting machines with no paper ballot backup.
people easily assume new technology is cheap, fast, convenient and foolproof. A quick glance at just about any new wave techno gadgetry quickly show that to be one assumption too far.
wj,
that may be true for paper ballots. Not so much with electronic voting machines with no paper ballot backup.
people easily assume new technology is cheap, fast, convenient and foolproof. A quick glance at just about any new wave techno gadgetry quickly show that to be one assumption too far.
bobby, I have seen way too many software systems to be under any illusions about assuming quality control happened.
But it occurs to me to wonder. In the places where they have gone to paperless voting, do they not post the results in each percinct? That seems to me to be the easiest check against rigging an election — you know how many votes were case, and you have the sign-in books for who voted.
So the only way to rig the election is to have folks signing in who shouldn’t be voting. And it isn’t that hard to simply go around to the addresses of those who signed in and check whether a) they exist, and b) they say that they voted. The only way around that is a lot of paid actors impersonating voters — and they’d have to be on -call at all times.
bobby, I have seen way too many software systems to be under any illusions about assuming quality control happened.
But it occurs to me to wonder. In the places where they have gone to paperless voting, do they not post the results in each percinct? That seems to me to be the easiest check against rigging an election — you know how many votes were case, and you have the sign-in books for who voted.
So the only way to rig the election is to have folks signing in who shouldn’t be voting. And it isn’t that hard to simply go around to the addresses of those who signed in and check whether a) they exist, and b) they say that they voted. The only way around that is a lot of paid actors impersonating voters — and they’d have to be on -call at all times.
bobby, I have seen way too many software systems to be under any illusions about assuming quality control happened.
But it occurs to me to wonder. In the places where they have gone to paperless voting, do they not post the results in each percinct? That seems to me to be the easiest check against rigging an election — you know how many votes were case, and you have the sign-in books for who voted.
So the only way to rig the election is to have folks signing in who shouldn’t be voting. And it isn’t that hard to simply go around to the addresses of those who signed in and check whether a) they exist, and b) they say that they voted. The only way around that is a lot of paid actors impersonating voters — and they’d have to be on -call at all times.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-we-are-in-campaign.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-we-are-in-campaign.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-we-are-in-campaign.html
IF they governed, this is what it would look like:
http://juanitajean.com/oh-lady-karma-have-i-told-you-today-how-gorgeous-you-are/
Crickets. Everything under the table. Corrupt f*cks.
Clinton is a cmall-time pickpocket by comparison.
IF they governed, this is what it would look like:
http://juanitajean.com/oh-lady-karma-have-i-told-you-today-how-gorgeous-you-are/
Crickets. Everything under the table. Corrupt f*cks.
Clinton is a cmall-time pickpocket by comparison.
IF they governed, this is what it would look like:
http://juanitajean.com/oh-lady-karma-have-i-told-you-today-how-gorgeous-you-are/
Crickets. Everything under the table. Corrupt f*cks.
Clinton is a cmall-time pickpocket by comparison.
On another (albeit related) topic. One of the things a President must do is manage and budget. Or at least employ people who will do that and do it well.
So over the weekend, I have seen a spate of political commercials here. For Donald Trump — including from him and from Ivanka. (All feature the tag line of “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.” So its not some crazy PAC. It’s the actual, cash-strapped, campaign organization.)
Let’s think about this just for an instant. In what universe is Trump going to win California? Or even just have a tiny chance of doing so? So what is the Trump campaign thinking, when they put resources into advertising here? Resources which, spent in a state that they might win and need to win, could actually have an impact on the outcome of the election.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way. Or somebody who was trying to build a post-election media brand, rather than actually trying to win….
On another (albeit related) topic. One of the things a President must do is manage and budget. Or at least employ people who will do that and do it well.
So over the weekend, I have seen a spate of political commercials here. For Donald Trump — including from him and from Ivanka. (All feature the tag line of “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.” So its not some crazy PAC. It’s the actual, cash-strapped, campaign organization.)
Let’s think about this just for an instant. In what universe is Trump going to win California? Or even just have a tiny chance of doing so? So what is the Trump campaign thinking, when they put resources into advertising here? Resources which, spent in a state that they might win and need to win, could actually have an impact on the outcome of the election.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way. Or somebody who was trying to build a post-election media brand, rather than actually trying to win….
On another (albeit related) topic. One of the things a President must do is manage and budget. Or at least employ people who will do that and do it well.
So over the weekend, I have seen a spate of political commercials here. For Donald Trump — including from him and from Ivanka. (All feature the tag line of “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.” So its not some crazy PAC. It’s the actual, cash-strapped, campaign organization.)
Let’s think about this just for an instant. In what universe is Trump going to win California? Or even just have a tiny chance of doing so? So what is the Trump campaign thinking, when they put resources into advertising here? Resources which, spent in a state that they might win and need to win, could actually have an impact on the outcome of the election.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way. Or somebody who was trying to build a post-election media brand, rather than actually trying to win….
wj,
as mike points out, the rigging only takes place in larger precincts. The number of voters matches. The signatures match the voter tally. But the vote results are messaged slightly, and there is no paper ballots to count as a back check.
The only way to check would be to obtain affidavits from each voter. No easy task, that.
wj,
as mike points out, the rigging only takes place in larger precincts. The number of voters matches. The signatures match the voter tally. But the vote results are messaged slightly, and there is no paper ballots to count as a back check.
The only way to check would be to obtain affidavits from each voter. No easy task, that.
wj,
as mike points out, the rigging only takes place in larger precincts. The number of voters matches. The signatures match the voter tally. But the vote results are messaged slightly, and there is no paper ballots to count as a back check.
The only way to check would be to obtain affidavits from each voter. No easy task, that.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way.
Maybe he’s buying ad time (with contributor $$$) from a subsidiary of Trump Inc and the margins are better in CA.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way.
Maybe he’s buying ad time (with contributor $$$) from a subsidiary of Trump Inc and the margins are better in CA.
I suppose that a guy who has managed his way to bankruptcy multiple times might be expected to spend money that way.
Maybe he’s buying ad time (with contributor $$$) from a subsidiary of Trump Inc and the margins are better in CA.
Bobby, that seems to call for not only large precincts, but ones where there are significant numbers of Trump voters. Otherwise there aren’t any votes to be “re-stated” for Clinton. And typically, the poll workers are drawn from the local community, which means that the poll workers from both sides would have to be in on the scam.
Now yes, the vote counts could be tweaked in the software. But if the counts are posted, it seems like a significant deviation from the expected (i.e. pre-election poll results) numbers would get some attention.
At that point, you don’t actually have to do a canvas. All you have to do is a software dump and validation. Better yet, take the actual voting machines that were used. With witnesses standing there watching how each vote is made, make a bunch of votes, and compare the results with what the machine reports. Basically, the sort of QA testing that good software goes through.
If you feel really paranoid, reset the clocks on the machine to say it is election day. Just in case the software contained a check for that — which would be excessively byzantine, but is certainly possible. Not a hard QA test to run either.
Bobby, that seems to call for not only large precincts, but ones where there are significant numbers of Trump voters. Otherwise there aren’t any votes to be “re-stated” for Clinton. And typically, the poll workers are drawn from the local community, which means that the poll workers from both sides would have to be in on the scam.
Now yes, the vote counts could be tweaked in the software. But if the counts are posted, it seems like a significant deviation from the expected (i.e. pre-election poll results) numbers would get some attention.
At that point, you don’t actually have to do a canvas. All you have to do is a software dump and validation. Better yet, take the actual voting machines that were used. With witnesses standing there watching how each vote is made, make a bunch of votes, and compare the results with what the machine reports. Basically, the sort of QA testing that good software goes through.
If you feel really paranoid, reset the clocks on the machine to say it is election day. Just in case the software contained a check for that — which would be excessively byzantine, but is certainly possible. Not a hard QA test to run either.
Bobby, that seems to call for not only large precincts, but ones where there are significant numbers of Trump voters. Otherwise there aren’t any votes to be “re-stated” for Clinton. And typically, the poll workers are drawn from the local community, which means that the poll workers from both sides would have to be in on the scam.
Now yes, the vote counts could be tweaked in the software. But if the counts are posted, it seems like a significant deviation from the expected (i.e. pre-election poll results) numbers would get some attention.
At that point, you don’t actually have to do a canvas. All you have to do is a software dump and validation. Better yet, take the actual voting machines that were used. With witnesses standing there watching how each vote is made, make a bunch of votes, and compare the results with what the machine reports. Basically, the sort of QA testing that good software goes through.
If you feel really paranoid, reset the clocks on the machine to say it is election day. Just in case the software contained a check for that — which would be excessively byzantine, but is certainly possible. Not a hard QA test to run either.
But if the counts are posted
I am no software or statistics geek, but if the “machine” is posting bogus reports, who’s to know?
The reason for only doing this in larger precincts is obvious. The larger the precinct, the larger the steal, the less the chance of detection.
Over thousands of precincts in a contested state, this could tip the balance.
Apparently it took a sharp statistician to demonstrate that the results were out of the ordinary. So I would refer you to the articles cited.
Agree, the physical demonstration test would validate the presence of software tampering.
The question is, how would the “bug” get on all those machines? I think this is where the conspiracy theories hit the wall.
So I’m not losing much sleep over it.
But if the counts are posted
I am no software or statistics geek, but if the “machine” is posting bogus reports, who’s to know?
The reason for only doing this in larger precincts is obvious. The larger the precinct, the larger the steal, the less the chance of detection.
Over thousands of precincts in a contested state, this could tip the balance.
Apparently it took a sharp statistician to demonstrate that the results were out of the ordinary. So I would refer you to the articles cited.
Agree, the physical demonstration test would validate the presence of software tampering.
The question is, how would the “bug” get on all those machines? I think this is where the conspiracy theories hit the wall.
So I’m not losing much sleep over it.
But if the counts are posted
I am no software or statistics geek, but if the “machine” is posting bogus reports, who’s to know?
The reason for only doing this in larger precincts is obvious. The larger the precinct, the larger the steal, the less the chance of detection.
Over thousands of precincts in a contested state, this could tip the balance.
Apparently it took a sharp statistician to demonstrate that the results were out of the ordinary. So I would refer you to the articles cited.
Agree, the physical demonstration test would validate the presence of software tampering.
The question is, how would the “bug” get on all those machines? I think this is where the conspiracy theories hit the wall.
So I’m not losing much sleep over it.
I’d say there is one place where we may well see election results which vary significantly from what was expected from pre-election polls. They will be in precincts (large or small) where the vast majority of the voters are Republicans. And yet, Clinton will get a far larger portion of the votes than expected. But also, third party candidates will get an even bigger tally than expected.
Why? Because, IMO, there may be a lot of Republican women who, when they get in the voting booth, just will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Trump. No matter what they tell pollsters. Or their husbands.
The good news is, because those are deep red districts, there will be lots of good Republican voting officials to dig into the results in detail. And, when they don’t find anything, the opportunities for “The fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is just proof of how good the conspirators are!” will be enormous. Could be a whole new industry in the making.
I’d say there is one place where we may well see election results which vary significantly from what was expected from pre-election polls. They will be in precincts (large or small) where the vast majority of the voters are Republicans. And yet, Clinton will get a far larger portion of the votes than expected. But also, third party candidates will get an even bigger tally than expected.
Why? Because, IMO, there may be a lot of Republican women who, when they get in the voting booth, just will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Trump. No matter what they tell pollsters. Or their husbands.
The good news is, because those are deep red districts, there will be lots of good Republican voting officials to dig into the results in detail. And, when they don’t find anything, the opportunities for “The fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is just proof of how good the conspirators are!” will be enormous. Could be a whole new industry in the making.
I’d say there is one place where we may well see election results which vary significantly from what was expected from pre-election polls. They will be in precincts (large or small) where the vast majority of the voters are Republicans. And yet, Clinton will get a far larger portion of the votes than expected. But also, third party candidates will get an even bigger tally than expected.
Why? Because, IMO, there may be a lot of Republican women who, when they get in the voting booth, just will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Trump. No matter what they tell pollsters. Or their husbands.
The good news is, because those are deep red districts, there will be lots of good Republican voting officials to dig into the results in detail. And, when they don’t find anything, the opportunities for “The fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is just proof of how good the conspirators are!” will be enormous. Could be a whole new industry in the making.
Taibbi strikes! This one is for you, NV!
Taibbi strikes! This one is for you, NV!
Taibbi strikes! This one is for you, NV!
Here is Marty’s guy.
Straight up conservative. Experience in government, in a couple of roles. Most importantly, does not appear to be a total knucklehead.
Listened to him for about 20 minutes on my ride home from work tonight on NPR. I disagree with him on pretty much any policy point you care to name, but I have no problem with him as a reasonable candidate for responsible public office.
My sense is that his interest is in doing what’s right for the country.
Wouldn’t want to see him win, wouldn’t want to see him go away.
Write him in and see what happens. Best of luck.
Here is Marty’s guy.
Straight up conservative. Experience in government, in a couple of roles. Most importantly, does not appear to be a total knucklehead.
Listened to him for about 20 minutes on my ride home from work tonight on NPR. I disagree with him on pretty much any policy point you care to name, but I have no problem with him as a reasonable candidate for responsible public office.
My sense is that his interest is in doing what’s right for the country.
Wouldn’t want to see him win, wouldn’t want to see him go away.
Write him in and see what happens. Best of luck.
Here is Marty’s guy.
Straight up conservative. Experience in government, in a couple of roles. Most importantly, does not appear to be a total knucklehead.
Listened to him for about 20 minutes on my ride home from work tonight on NPR. I disagree with him on pretty much any policy point you care to name, but I have no problem with him as a reasonable candidate for responsible public office.
My sense is that his interest is in doing what’s right for the country.
Wouldn’t want to see him win, wouldn’t want to see him go away.
Write him in and see what happens. Best of luck.
Gotta get this off my chest:
This morning I accidentally turned the TV on, and there was the Morning Joe crew, beating their hairshirted breasts and heaping ashes on their bowed heads about how the elite coastal media just don’t understand the legitimate pain of “regular” folks which expresses itself as support for He, Trump. “People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.
And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?
The reason American politics is pathetic is because the American punditocracy is about six.
–TP
Gotta get this off my chest:
This morning I accidentally turned the TV on, and there was the Morning Joe crew, beating their hairshirted breasts and heaping ashes on their bowed heads about how the elite coastal media just don’t understand the legitimate pain of “regular” folks which expresses itself as support for He, Trump. “People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.
And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?
The reason American politics is pathetic is because the American punditocracy is about six.
–TP
Gotta get this off my chest:
This morning I accidentally turned the TV on, and there was the Morning Joe crew, beating their hairshirted breasts and heaping ashes on their bowed heads about how the elite coastal media just don’t understand the legitimate pain of “regular” folks which expresses itself as support for He, Trump. “People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.
And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?
The reason American politics is pathetic is because the American punditocracy is about six.
–TP
beating their hairshirted breasts…
Watch it, pal!
beating their hairshirted breasts…
Watch it, pal!
beating their hairshirted breasts…
Watch it, pal!
“And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?”
Whaaaa? It’s called resentment of white people. They just don’t bother to segment.
“And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?”
Whaaaa? It’s called resentment of white people. They just don’t bother to segment.
“And I asked myself: did no black people lose their jobs, homes, or 401ks? Where is their resentment of the “coastal elites”?”
Whaaaa? It’s called resentment of white people. They just don’t bother to segment.
i’ve been repeatedly told, right here no less, that black people have absolutely nothing to be resentful about. and if they do it’s all their fault anyway.
i’ve been repeatedly told, right here no less, that black people have absolutely nothing to be resentful about. and if they do it’s all their fault anyway.
i’ve been repeatedly told, right here no less, that black people have absolutely nothing to be resentful about. and if they do it’s all their fault anyway.
They just don’t bother to segment.
Apparently, you don’t either.
They just don’t bother to segment.
Apparently, you don’t either.
They just don’t bother to segment.
Apparently, you don’t either.
the case for not sitting it out:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/the-case-for-not-sitting-out-this-election-in-two-maps/
the case for not sitting it out:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/the-case-for-not-sitting-out-this-election-in-two-maps/
the case for not sitting it out:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/the-case-for-not-sitting-out-this-election-in-two-maps/
Those who are poor, but vote for Democrats are not real ‘mericans, and anyways, they get all that free stuff like obamaphones.
Obviously u didn’t get the memo.
Those who are poor, but vote for Democrats are not real ‘mericans, and anyways, they get all that free stuff like obamaphones.
Obviously u didn’t get the memo.
Those who are poor, but vote for Democrats are not real ‘mericans, and anyways, they get all that free stuff like obamaphones.
Obviously u didn’t get the memo.
“Apparently, you don’t either.”
Should we put some in front of all of those: some “regular” people resent “coastal elites”, some black people lost houses, 401(k, some black people resent white people, some black people resent white privilege. Heck, some black people resent “coastal elites”.
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
“Apparently, you don’t either.”
Should we put some in front of all of those: some “regular” people resent “coastal elites”, some black people lost houses, 401(k, some black people resent white people, some black people resent white privilege. Heck, some black people resent “coastal elites”.
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
“Apparently, you don’t either.”
Should we put some in front of all of those: some “regular” people resent “coastal elites”, some black people lost houses, 401(k, some black people resent white people, some black people resent white privilege. Heck, some black people resent “coastal elites”.
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
‘”People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.’
really?
how’d that happen?
‘”People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.’
really?
how’d that happen?
‘”People have lost their jobs, people have lost their homes, their 401ks,” and so on.’
really?
how’d that happen?
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
They were talking about Trump supporters. I guess you (or the people on the show) haven’t seen the polls.
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
They were talking about Trump supporters. I guess you (or the people on the show) haven’t seen the polls.
I don’t know, from information provided I would assume Morning Joe(?) was including black regular people in regular people.
They were talking about Trump supporters. I guess you (or the people on the show) haven’t seen the polls.
Maybe the polls that they haven’t seen are the ones which reveal that the folks who have fallen on such hard times aren’t the ones who are Trump supporters. Rather most Trump supporters are doing just fine (incomes well above median, etc.) . . . they merely don’t see a path to doing better. And have doubts whether their children will be able to do as well as they have.
It makes a great narrative to say that Trump supporters havce financial trouble, and we should be sympathetic. Except that, mostly, they don’t.
What they have actually lost is the confidence that people like them (race, culture, etc.) are the ones who are running things. It isn’t economic loss, it’s loss of power. (Whether the folks who have power ever really cared about them is a different discussion.)
Maybe the polls that they haven’t seen are the ones which reveal that the folks who have fallen on such hard times aren’t the ones who are Trump supporters. Rather most Trump supporters are doing just fine (incomes well above median, etc.) . . . they merely don’t see a path to doing better. And have doubts whether their children will be able to do as well as they have.
It makes a great narrative to say that Trump supporters havce financial trouble, and we should be sympathetic. Except that, mostly, they don’t.
What they have actually lost is the confidence that people like them (race, culture, etc.) are the ones who are running things. It isn’t economic loss, it’s loss of power. (Whether the folks who have power ever really cared about them is a different discussion.)
Maybe the polls that they haven’t seen are the ones which reveal that the folks who have fallen on such hard times aren’t the ones who are Trump supporters. Rather most Trump supporters are doing just fine (incomes well above median, etc.) . . . they merely don’t see a path to doing better. And have doubts whether their children will be able to do as well as they have.
It makes a great narrative to say that Trump supporters havce financial trouble, and we should be sympathetic. Except that, mostly, they don’t.
What they have actually lost is the confidence that people like them (race, culture, etc.) are the ones who are running things. It isn’t economic loss, it’s loss of power. (Whether the folks who have power ever really cared about them is a different discussion.)
I rarely find myself in agreement with the GOP these days. But I’ve never been a party man. I only register Republican so I can vote that way in the primaries.
Shorter: hell, no.
I think the “rigged” thing is all Trump. And Trump I carry zero brief for, as ever.
I rarely find myself in agreement with the GOP these days. But I’ve never been a party man. I only register Republican so I can vote that way in the primaries.
Shorter: hell, no.
I think the “rigged” thing is all Trump. And Trump I carry zero brief for, as ever.
I rarely find myself in agreement with the GOP these days. But I’ve never been a party man. I only register Republican so I can vote that way in the primaries.
Shorter: hell, no.
I think the “rigged” thing is all Trump. And Trump I carry zero brief for, as ever.
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism. (Clearly much of it is about racism.0
https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-here/
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism. (Clearly much of it is about racism.0
https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-here/
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism. (Clearly much of it is about racism.0
https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-here/
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism.
I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that Trump supporters do or don’t suffer from economic anxiety. Since Democrats are trying to address wealth inequality, why should anyone care that certain people are supporting Republicans for whatever reason? Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety, except for the wealthy.
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism.
I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that Trump supporters do or don’t suffer from economic anxiety. Since Democrats are trying to address wealth inequality, why should anyone care that certain people are supporting Republicans for whatever reason? Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety, except for the wealthy.
A response to the Vox piece that says Trump support is all about racism.
I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that Trump supporters do or don’t suffer from economic anxiety. Since Democrats are trying to address wealth inequality, why should anyone care that certain people are supporting Republicans for whatever reason? Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety, except for the wealthy.
It really is just DEPLORABLE how those poor urban coastal blahs went and outsourced all the good jobs from Heartland Amerika™ overseas.
If only there were a billionaire for the disgruntled non-coastal masses to vote for, who would PUNISH those responsible.
It really is just DEPLORABLE how those poor urban coastal blahs went and outsourced all the good jobs from Heartland Amerika™ overseas.
If only there were a billionaire for the disgruntled non-coastal masses to vote for, who would PUNISH those responsible.
It really is just DEPLORABLE how those poor urban coastal blahs went and outsourced all the good jobs from Heartland Amerika™ overseas.
If only there were a billionaire for the disgruntled non-coastal masses to vote for, who would PUNISH those responsible.
Shorter: hell, no.
I’m probably kicking off a long subthread here, but while I’d agree that they haven’t adopted the ‘the election is rigged’ banner, IMO given the constant invocations of voter fraud by Republicans, this is a great example of reaping what you sow.
Shorter: hell, no.
I’m probably kicking off a long subthread here, but while I’d agree that they haven’t adopted the ‘the election is rigged’ banner, IMO given the constant invocations of voter fraud by Republicans, this is a great example of reaping what you sow.
Shorter: hell, no.
I’m probably kicking off a long subthread here, but while I’d agree that they haven’t adopted the ‘the election is rigged’ banner, IMO given the constant invocations of voter fraud by Republicans, this is a great example of reaping what you sow.
As usual, there is someone who makes this observation before I do somewhere else. This time LGM
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/10/the-vote-fraud-fraud-another-way-in-which-donald-trump-is-the-culmination-of-longstanding-republican-trends
As usual, there is someone who makes this observation before I do somewhere else. This time LGM
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/10/the-vote-fraud-fraud-another-way-in-which-donald-trump-is-the-culmination-of-longstanding-republican-trends
As usual, there is someone who makes this observation before I do somewhere else. This time LGM
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/10/the-vote-fraud-fraud-another-way-in-which-donald-trump-is-the-culmination-of-longstanding-republican-trends
Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety
well, they’re inflaming it beyond reason.
Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety
well, they’re inflaming it beyond reason.
Republicans are doing squat about anyone’s economic anxiety
well, they’re inflaming it beyond reason.
Time to get the “3rd debate open thread” going, for our predictions.
My prediction: Trump yammers about the latest “quid pro quo gate” between State and the FBI, even though it happened a couple of years AFTER Clinton left State, and the person involved at State is a career civil servant that got hired before Clinton got there.
“F’in calendars, how DO they work?”
Time to get the “3rd debate open thread” going, for our predictions.
My prediction: Trump yammers about the latest “quid pro quo gate” between State and the FBI, even though it happened a couple of years AFTER Clinton left State, and the person involved at State is a career civil servant that got hired before Clinton got there.
“F’in calendars, how DO they work?”
Time to get the “3rd debate open thread” going, for our predictions.
My prediction: Trump yammers about the latest “quid pro quo gate” between State and the FBI, even though it happened a couple of years AFTER Clinton left State, and the person involved at State is a career civil servant that got hired before Clinton got there.
“F’in calendars, how DO they work?”
Clinton should ask him about his globalist past.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24917
Clinton should ask him about his globalist past.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24917
Clinton should ask him about his globalist past.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=24917
It’s up Snarki!
It’s up Snarki!
It’s up Snarki!
“My prediction”
I’m holding out for Trump showing up with two urine specimin jars and demanding that he and Clinton submit to a pre-debate on-the-spot drugs test, live on TV.
“My prediction”
I’m holding out for Trump showing up with two urine specimin jars and demanding that he and Clinton submit to a pre-debate on-the-spot drugs test, live on TV.
“My prediction”
I’m holding out for Trump showing up with two urine specimin jars and demanding that he and Clinton submit to a pre-debate on-the-spot drugs test, live on TV.
russell: ONE specimen jar, because Trump’s doctor (the BEST doctor, believe me) has already given him a clean drug-test result, and here’s the letter to prove it!
russell: ONE specimen jar, because Trump’s doctor (the BEST doctor, believe me) has already given him a clean drug-test result, and here’s the letter to prove it!
russell: ONE specimen jar, because Trump’s doctor (the BEST doctor, believe me) has already given him a clean drug-test result, and here’s the letter to prove it!
Actually, the doctor’s note claimed that all Trump’s results were positive. Have to imagine that applies to any drug tests.
Actually, the doctor’s note claimed that all Trump’s results were positive. Have to imagine that applies to any drug tests.
Actually, the doctor’s note claimed that all Trump’s results were positive. Have to imagine that applies to any drug tests.