The General Election

cm husker said:
It's depressing to me that the wealthy can use "charitable tax deductions" for pet projects (like football renovations) as a way to pass the tax bill on to less wealthy people.

Charitable donations or not, it's sort of ridiculous that Buffett paid a 15% effective rate.

A more sound approach would be to lower income taxes on everyone, but do away with the charitable deduction (and a host of others).
Click to expand...
Capital gains?
 
ZRod said:
cm husker said:
It's depressing to me that the wealthy can use "charitable tax deductions" for pet projects (like football renovations) as a way to pass the tax bill on to less wealthy people.

Charitable donations or not, it's sort of ridiculous that Buffett paid a 15% effective rate.

A more sound approach would be to lower income taxes on everyone, but do away with the charitable deduction (and a host of others).
Click to expand...
Capital gains?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're asking here... Buffett avoids a lot of taxes by not realizing income on his stock gains and eventually will only pay 15% of those earnings in stock.

In terms of whether I think we should do away with capital gains' more favorable tax rate? Generally, yes, if it's coupled with reducing the corporate tax rate and reducing the marginal tax rates.

 

I feel like even if Clinton has a decent or even good 4 years, it's going to be extremely tough for her to win in 2020 if the Republicans nominate anyone who isn't a total loser. It's hard for one party to keep the presidency for that long.

In other words I'd be interested in taking those bets or one for Rubio.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I believe that's "next" as in 2016.

BigRedBuster said:
This is the kind of thing that I just get so frustrated about. The Republicans have become so good at this. So.....you disagree with her policies and...yes....we have proof she is a total b!^@h and that she enabled her sexual predator husband.
Click to expand...
We agree so much, BRB, but it's hard to let this go.

I think we should recognize this strategy, as the article accompanying that tweet points out, is an effective one. It's not that they don't know when to stop and so destroy their own arguments. It's that they (*not unique to one political faction) flood the field with all sorts of fantastical charges that some of those start seeming like the moderate, reasonable positions. But they aren't.

I think there are a lot of problems with this idea that she enabled her husband, or that she should answer for her husband's sins. And I think the 'b!^@h' line is rather disconcerting. There are *plenty* of criticisms of Hillary, but these are troubling echoes of the worst of the worst of the not Alex Joneses. Which are not, therefore, moderate positions. (For that matter, I've not much respect for Bill Clinton's serial philandering, but is it accepted that he is actually a sexual predator without buying into Breitbart?)

Probably the most poignant criticism of Hillary is that her record is one of someone so tied and vested in establishment power structures, at a time when suspicion of those are deservingly hot. Of all the candidates who theoretically could have been out there, she can't have the most credible case as a true progressive, or as a change agent. Her apparent paranoia seems like a real political liability, in an office where ability to accomplish can depend a lot on ability to avoid drowning in scandals real or imagined.

But beneath the megaphones of the Trey Gowdy's and Donald Trumps and their surrogates, *we* abandon the realms of the non-absurd and we start viewing as rational or agreeable these shouts of "BENGHAZI", or "CRIMINAL", or ... b!^@h. Because there's always something more outrageous out there. And that's playing right into their hands.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to your betting site the odds of Trump dropping out of the race ahead of the 3rd debate are equal to the odds of Michigan winning the College Football Playoff. Also equal are the odds of Pence winning the election and Nebraska winning the title. Do what you will with this information.

 
While extraordinary* in itself, "I'm with her" is not at all the idea Beck is expressing.

Of course, we must consider the editorial source of that image.

*We have known Beck's opposition to Trump for quite some time, right? Was he the fast-for-Cruz guy? Although, hey, maybe Glenn will come all the way around. He did on Black Lives Matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed we have. He was one or the Cruz guys, yeah. Most of these conservative radio host types preach the conservative doctrine to the letter, and I assume Becck is no different... I've certainly never listened. But he's a purist, so he opted for Cruz.

Of course it's just Breitbart taking a free shot at him. I just thought it was a funny tweet. Lots to unpack in there. Breitbart commissioned, a jubilant Beck, and of course his snazzy duds.

Of course, since Trump won, he's been a holdout... I assume because he's an actual conservative. He just recently had a come to Jesus moment (last Sunday IIRC) wherein he realized putting Trump in charge of the country was insane, even at the cost of a Hillary Clinton White House. If you're a bad enough candidate to drive Glenn Beck to support Hillary, well, that's certainly saying something.

But we DO indeed live in unprecedented times. We're a month away from a man having successfully faked his way through a presidential campaign:


 
This seems like the scene in Jurassic Park where the professor and the little girl are scrambling down the tree to dodge the falling vehicle, it crashes down & when the dust settles she says, "Well... here we are... back in the car."


 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
^ I believe that's "next" as in 2016.

BigRedBuster said:
This is the kind of thing that I just get so frustrated about. The Republicans have become so good at this. So.....you disagree with her policies and...yes....we have proof she is a total b!^@h and that she enabled her sexual predator husband.
Click to expand...
We agree so much, BRB, but it's hard to let this go.

I think we should recognize this strategy, as the article accompanying that tweet points out, is an effective one. It's not that they don't know when to stop and so destroy their own arguments. It's that they (*not unique to one political faction) flood the field with all sorts of fantastical charges that some of those start seeming like the moderate, reasonable positions. But they aren't.

I think there are a lot of problems with this idea that she enabled her husband, or that she should answer for her husband's sins. And I think the 'b!^@h' line is rather disconcerting. There are *plenty* of criticisms of Hillary, but these are troubling echoes of the worst of the worst of the not Alex Joneses. Which are not, therefore, moderate positions. (For that matter, I've not much respect for Bill Clinton's serial philandering, but is it accepted that he is actually a sexual predator without buying into Breitbart?)

Probably the most poignant criticism of Hillary is that her record is one of someone so tied and vested in establishment power structures, at a time when suspicion of those are deservingly hot. Of all the candidates who theoretically could have been out there, she can't have the most credible case as a true progressive, or as a change agent. Her apparent paranoia seems like a real political liability, in an office where ability to accomplish can depend a lot on ability to avoid drowning in scandals real or imagined.

But beneath the megaphones of the Trey Gowdy's and Donald Trumps and their surrogates, *we* abandon the realms of the non-absurd and we start viewing as rational or agreeable these shouts of "BENGHAZI", or "CRIMINAL", or ... b!^@h. Because there's always something more outrageous out there. And that's playing right into their hands.
Click to expand...

I am not meaning to tie her to Bill's sins. But, she did enable him. She was no different than the spouse who's living with the alcoholic that is making everyone else's life miserable including their kids. He/She is not the alcoholic. He/She isn't the cause of the alcoholism....but....He/She sure as hell isn't doing anything to help and prevent him from making their kid's life miserable.

To poo poo how she acted during that time to women who should have had support is playing political games.

Now...like I've said....Bill isn't running in this campaign...she is. The Republicans would do better if they didn't go full out wacko like in the tweet that was posted. But.....I don't think they can control themselves long enough to not.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top