|
Why are we pretending a subreddit represents and significant portion of any group ever especially a politician? There are weird rear end subreddits for everything ever and if we chose that as the representative group of those things they'd all be weird and pathetic.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:So how is it that the Dems talking about Trump is apparently a win for Trump, but entire GOP debates devoted to hand-wringing about Hillary aren't reported as huge victories for Hillary? Because the Republicans have a giant field of candidates right now that desperately want to pull the wind out of Trump's sails and separate the party's image from him. By invoking Trump, the Dems arguably demonstrate that they consider him a big threat, helping to galvanize conservative support behind him and give him more credibility among people not currently sold on his viability. It also puts him in the limelight over the rest of the field, painting him as the face of the Republican Party. Hillary has been chief persona non grata to the GOP for over two decades at this point and the unofficial Democratic front-runner for 2016 since 2008. If the GOP devoted a whole debate to handwringing about Sanders, then it would absolutely be a win for him. But with Hillary they're just maintaining the status quo. Of course they think she's the biggest threat, she's the front-runner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So how did Bernie and Hillary do last night? I'm watching the debate and so far it doesn't look like anyone but O'Malley is doing a terrible job. Alright, the debate was pretty much a wash due to the moderators preventing a debate from breaking out on stage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So how did Bernie and Hillary do last night? I'm watching the debate and so far it doesn't look like anyone but O'Malley is doing a terrible job. Hilary had to poop but then came out mid debate and said sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Hillary said may the force be with you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Clinton is already dominate and a shoe-in for the nomination and more importantly is the candidate that most of the Democratic voters want in the general election. More or less. Basically the Democratic party (Sander's comically dumb campaign staff not included) has accepted Clinton as their next candidate. She has the attention, and they want to give her the attention. So when the GOP-ers point and go "Look at this she-devil!" it really adds nothing, doubly so since they've been trying to drown her in scandals as long as I can remember (about 90's-ish though I'm sure it goes further back) and all it's done is temper he blade. In short it gives legitimacy to a legitimate candidate, ho-hum, nothing new here. Meanwhile the GOP is still a clown car with Trump beating everyone senseless. The GOP desperately wants anyone BUT Trump which is why we have all these candidates staying in the race despite having sub-5% appeals. I mean, even JEB! is still there despite it becoming pretty obvious that W. was the smarter of daddy's two shrubs (and hemorrhaging money every day he is  ). So when the Dems point at Trump as the Republican front runner (which he is, much to the GOP's panicked disgust) it's giving legitimacy to an illegitimate underdog, which only adds to his underdog appeal and makes the GOP seem more like bullies for not letting the second coming of Trickle Down Jesus take his rightful place at the front of the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Why are we pretending a subreddit represents and significant portion of any group ever especially a politician? There are weird rear end subreddits for everything ever and if we chose that as the representative group of those things they'd all be weird and pathetic. I dunno, we do it with Free Republic for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I dunno, we do it with Free Republic for some reason. It isn't indicative of Sanders supporters overall, but indicative of the most hardcore, most entertaining Sanders supporters. There's a good portion of his supporters that are just supporting a candidate they like. Then there's a portion that really really likes him and will hate anybody in his way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I dunno, we do it with Free Republic for some reason. We do it with Free Republic because it is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:It isn't indicative of Sanders supporters overall, but indicative of the most hardcore, most entertaining Sanders supporters. Also it's not some niche section of Sanders supporters, it has 140,000 subscribers and they are very vocal and go to almost every other internet community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So how did Bernie and Hillary do last night? I'm watching the debate and so far it doesn't look like anyone but O'Malley is doing a terrible job. https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/678622287008915456
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Also it's not some niche section of Sanders supporters, it has 140,000 subscribers and they are very vocal and go to almost every other internet community. I think it is semi-official as well. A decent number of the people posting there are involved with the campaign in more than a phonebanking/volunteer capacity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
i see someone is new to recieving campaign emails looking to raise money
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Is this the first time he's seen a fundraising email?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The DNCs brilliant plan to put debates on Saturdays continues to pay dividends as last nights debate netted 6 million viewers, down two million from the previous Saturday debate and far behind the 15 million of the only Tuesday debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. 10% of a person making 10 dollars a year is much more significant than that of a person making a million dollars a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The DNCs brilliant plan to put debates on Saturdays continues to pay dividends as last nights debate netted 6 million viewers, down two million from the previous Saturday debate and far behind the 15 million of the only Tuesday debate. Why the gently caress are they doing this? I know what I'd hear if I asked in /r/SandersforPresident but is there an actual non-conspiracy theory as to why they schedule the debates so poorly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. spoiler alert: it fucks over everyone at the expense of a huge boon to the richest of the rich, all while gutting overall tax revenues
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The non-conspiracy answer is that DWS is loving awful at her job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Sounds like Trump talk was less of a boost to his credibility (He's the clear front runner after all) and more of a dagger in the side of the rest of the clown car. Maybe I've got the wrong read tho I do think it's hilarious that right now the best hope for any non-Trump except MAYBE Cruz is an "endorsement" from Clinton
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. Regressive taxation is bad (see also sales taxes, et al).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. the most glaring flaw is that none of them as presented are revenue neutral except for potentially the VAT that I think Cruz hid inside his plan (that destroys the idea of it being flat)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The DNCs brilliant plan to put debates on Saturdays continues to pay dividends as last nights debate netted 6 million viewers, down two million from the previous Saturday debate and far behind the 15 million of the only Tuesday debate. Tbf there was a football game on at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. If person A makes $10,000 a year, the portion of that money that goes to necessities of life (food, shelter, healthcare etc) is astronomical. Taking a flat percent of that $10,000 can destroy someone financially. If person B makes a billion dollars a year, the portion that goes to those same necessities is so minuscule it's not even a rounding error for a day's wages for that person. A third mansion in the Alps and beluga caviar are not considered necessities in this situation, but telling person B that will make them flip their poo poo and demand that person A pay "Their fair share!", and thus a flat tax gets proposed over and over and over. Or, more cynically, person B wants a flat tax so that everyone else in the nation is crushed by anything over a low amount and it would make their lobbying expenditures to reduce their own tax to an even more absurdly low amount than it already is much more efficient as a return on investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
joeburz posted:spoiler alert: it fucks over everyone at the expense of a huge boon to the richest of the rich, all while gutting overall tax revenues This was not a good enough answer for the person that was talking about how a flat tax would be better and I was hoping there was more that I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
fknlo posted:This was not a good enough answer for the person that was talking about how a flat tax would be better and I was hoping there was more that I couldn't think of off the top of my head. No answer you give will be good enough for a true believer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
fknlo posted:This was not a good enough answer for the person that was talking about how a flat tax would be better and I was hoping there was more that I couldn't think of off the top of my head. Sever, ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:No answer you give will be good enough for a true believer. This person is planning on retiring near Colorado Springs, so I figured it was a lost cause, but it's someone I see at work every day(who is also a unionized government employee  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
kill them for the sake of humanity, op
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp With a video on it explaining it. And why only assholes want it in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
fknlo posted:This was not a good enough answer for the person that was talking about how a flat tax would be better and I was hoping there was more that I couldn't think of off the top of my head. If "it doesn't work and even worse it mangles the income of poor people" isn't a good enough answer you are not going to win this argument no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
fknlo posted:This was not a good enough answer for the person that was talking about how a flat tax would be better and I was hoping there was more that I couldn't think of off the top of my head. If they're riding high enough on the supply side jesus conservative train to think Herman Cain had any loving clue what he was doing besides saying 9-9-9 over and over again because it made for a snappy sound bite then they're probably not going to ever believe anything other than what they want to believe. Facts, logic and evidence to the contrary will further entrench them into their opinion because it's what they want to believe, so they will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can someone point me towards info on why a flat tax is dumb/doesn't work? The easier to understand the better. Everyone needs a certain amount, say 20k/yr, to sustain with food, shelter, gas etc. So by taxing that first 20k under flat tax you're loving over people who make closer to 20k. Now that number goes up with kids too. It's very FYGM so right up the GOPs alley. A progressive tax lets everyone earn that first 20k tax free so they spend it in the economy. Then it scales up into more brackets. Also tax breaks for things like making babies and buying expensive things that fuel the economy like house and degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
And regardless, every flat tax plan that has been fleshed out and tries to carve out exceptions at the low end has still resulted in massive tax cuts for the wealthiest. It's just a roundabout way of starving the beast while appealing to anti-tax shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Jesus the Christbro himself even had something to say about the rich vs. poor giving. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite The old lady who offered two of the lowest value coins gave more than the rich, because that was all she had. This makes Dr. Ben Carson's 10% tithe "its Biblical and fair!" tax plan pretty amusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:This makes Dr. Ben Carson's 10% tithe "its Biblical and fair!" tax plan pretty amusing. Some should ask Carson to change the dollar to the money used by Jesus at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:No answer you give will be good enough for a true believer. Even Trump thinks it's regressive and a bad idea. That's saying something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
nerve posted:Why the gently caress are they doing this? DWS is a incompetent moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Depending on his flavor of conservatism you could say that Russia has a flat tax. Do you want America to be like RUSSIA? But if he's a Putin admirer then it could backfire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 20:05
|
|
