|
Is it confirmed Pence is attending? If so  No wonder Trump literally wants him dead.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:It's hard to square this with the Qultists who think Trump is some sleeper agent out to make mass arrests of "Washington DC pedophiles". The true believers still think something is going to happen to keep Biden from being president. I think the cratering support is more that any Republican who wasn't totally bought in has abandoned him because the consequences of all his talk have finally come to fruition, and it's ugly. Business Republicans know a coup is bad for business. Yes, the true believers and hardcore weirdos are by far the biggest and most serious problem and I'm hosed if I know what to do about them. I live in FL and went into a gas station, told my 9 year old son to social distance from anyone not wearing a mask in the store (there were a few) and the motherfucker was all "What did you say?!?" I politely informed the (maskless belligerent redneck) gentleman that I was not speaking to him but my son, which seemed to clear the matter until we got outside and were waiting for the cops and the wreckers to clear an accident that had happened earlier. I was explaining to my boy that we wear masks to protect other people, not ourselves, and to avoid anyone not wearing one and overheard this stupid motherfucker STILL trying to interject himself into my conversation and suggesting I not teach my son "bullshit". I didn't engage (I REALLY wanted to) just mainly to de-escalate and not put a 9 year old boy in danger but these dummies were intentionally not wearing masks and seemed to be itching for someone to say something about it. Like, just genuinely trying to start trouble for no reason with a little 4th grade boy standing there browsing the ice cream aisle. I wanted to rip his loving throat out. Never mind reaching across the aisle to vote for UHC. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Is it confirmed Pence is attending? Yep, Pence confirmed several days ago. One source here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:He's suppose do some kind of America United themed event during the inauguration along with Carter, Clinton and Obama. All the living US Presidents but not Trump. That's a little less bad I guess. Still not great though IMO. I won't be happy if it gives Dubya's favorability ratings a bump. And before anyone says it, no, of course he's not going to run for office again. I just don't want any more whitewashing of his legacy, or of his fellow neocons in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a little less bad I guess. Still not great though IMO. I won't be happy if it gives Dubya's favorability ratings a bump. And before anyone says it, no, of course he's not going to run for office again. I just don't want any more whitewashing of his legacy, or of his fellow neocons in general. I get the concern, but I have the impression that Dubbya was just looped in because nobody ever thought Trump was gonna go to this thing, and they want to have a visible proxy for the whole “predecessor attending the inauguration of the new president” thing. That’s something that has happened in all but four transitions when the predecessor was still alive. I don’t think Pence counts as a proxy under these circumstances. He was just invited to piss off Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
generic one posted:I get the concern, but I have the impression that Dubbya was just looped in because nobody ever thought Trump was gonna go to this thing, and they want to have a visible proxy for the whole “predecessor attending the inauguration of the new president” thing. That’s something that has happened in all but four transitions when the predecessor was still alive. Yeah, I understand, and it probably would have been awkward for Biden to say "all the ex-presidents BUT Bush." I'm just concerned. People having whitewashed views of the Dubya administration is, in and of itself, a very dangerous thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I understand, and it probably would have been awkward for Biden to say "all the ex-presidents BUT Bush." I'm just concerned. People having whitewashed views of the Dubya administration is, in and of itself, a very dangerous thing. I feel like it's similar to the whitewashing of the culpability of northern centrists during the civil rights movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Dubya is going to be whitewashed in like 50-70 years or whatever because that's just what the passage of time does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I understand, and it probably would have been awkward for Biden to say "all the ex-presidents BUT Bush." I'm just concerned. People having whitewashed views of the Dubya administration is, in and of itself, a very dangerous thing. Honestly, I’m not sure how it can get any more whitewashed at this point. I did a quick search to see if there was current polling, found this from back in 2018, and it was 61% favorable. I imagine it’s higher now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
generic one posted:Honestly, I’m not sure how it can get any more whitewashed at this point. I did a quick search to see if there was current polling, found this from back in 2018, and it was 61% favorable. I imagine it’s higher now. Trump is responsible for a lot of that, I'd imagine. He was so bad that he had people like my parents, who hated Bush, saying "man I wish we had George W back."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Trump is responsible for a lot of that, I'd imagine. He was so bad that he had people like my parents, who hated Bush, saying "man I wish we had George W back." Well, yeah, that’s definitely a big part of it. Some of it is also him going into recluse mode for several years after his administration, and then suddenly media outlets started doing in-depth articles about his painting hobby and Ellen DeGeneres started hanging out with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Semi related to polling and since some people expressed interest I started a dedicated advertising thread https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3955716 I think there's some cross over with polling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:George W. Bush reingratiated himself with the public because he almost never talks politics publicly and when he does, it's non-controversial stuff. Kind of. Bush still shows up to campaign for republicans every so often. He was out campaigning for Corey Stewart when he was running for Governor of VA back in '17. I think he's just a lot more reserved about it so if you blink, you miss it. The difference is, I think even Bush endorsing a really shitastic candidate at a rally is extremely muted compared to Trump walking on stage and performing verbal diarrhea for 90 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Kind of. Bush still shows up to campaign for republicans every so often. He was out campaigning for Corey Stewart when he was running for Governor of VA back in '17. I think he's just a lot more reserved about it so if you blink, you miss it. Similarly imagine Trump going on Colbert, Ellen or Fallon the way Bush W went on Ellen. Yeah he could and did do that on the 2016 campaign trail but now all those TV hosts are Enemies of The People and any interview would end with nazis threatening their families
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
I feel as though a lot of the increased popularity of Bush is quite soft and comes from him being inactive at the national level. I would expect that if he ever got involved in politics again in a serious way people would pretty quickly sour on him again when they had to actively think about him and what he stood for. Or maybe I'm hopelessly naive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
I'm curious about what the general R take on the Iraq War is now, given that Trump's statements against it during the 2016 got decent traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:I'm curious about what the general R take on the Iraq War is now, given that Trump's statements against it during the 2016 got decent traction. "Why did Obama get us into that war? It's because he was trying to distract from hiding on Air Force One during 9/11! OBAMA!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:I'm curious about what the general R take on the Iraq War is now, given that Trump's statements against it during the 2016 got decent traction. "It was a mistake, but Obama allowed ISIS to form."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Any more articles about why the hell Georgia had unusually good polling? For the Presidential race AND the special election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:I'm curious about what the general R take on the Iraq War is now, given that Trump's statements against it during the 2016 got decent traction. "We spent too much money and soldiers on pussy nation building and getting oil instead of just nuking those sand-*******!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
Here is a Number that warms my heart: https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1351357588189941761
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
It has been a while for a President to lose approval ratings in the lame duck. In fact I don't think it happened....ever? Excluding Kennedy and Nixon, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:It has been a while for a President to lose approval ratings in the lame duck. In fact I don't think it happened....ever? Excluding Kennedy and Nixon, of course. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 08:09
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Here is a Number that warms my heart: It's arguable that Trump is the worst President, but he is the most consistently hated President.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 08:26
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:It's arguable that Trump is the worst President, but he is the most consistently hated President. Only one never to crack 50% approval
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
There's something kind of delicious about Trump having his worst rating of his entire 4 years as he walks out the door. People remember how you left, they don't remember the middle, so leaving on a huge down note (to put it mildly) will stick in people's memories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Even Dubya got a bump up during his lame duck period: This graph will never not be fascinating and infuriating to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nationaljournal/status/1351382642940407808?s=20 This feels insanely premature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Even Dubya got a bump up during his lame duck period: That's the moment the recession became Obama's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:https://twitter.com/nationaljournal/status/1351382642940407808?s=20 Yeah, there's going to be pleeeeeeeenty of time for some non-scandal Tan Suit Scandal to re-energize and re-align the right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
It's absolutely premature for 2022, but I do think that they missed the opportunity to correctly define how they wanted 2022 to be framed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
quote:But it’s hard to imagine this country’s political mood returning to where it was before Jan. 6. Good luck convincing swing voters that Democratic progressivism is a bigger threat to the country than an insurrection against our own government—a domestic terror threat that has forced federal law enforcement to call thousands of troops to the Capitol and close off almost all of downtown D.C. this week, and could last well beyond Biden’s inauguration. Will the Republican focus on law and order have the same resonance after many of their lawmakers voted against certifying election results, fueling a riot against the Congress? Will the effective attacks on Democrats over “defunding the police” work when a police officer was murdered by a mob of Trump supporters? I think definitively saying that the GOP won't do well in 2022 is premature, but this is a good point, I think. There's a very real Trump backlash effect that I think can be milked, even after he's gone, through constantly reminding voters in races with chud candidates of images of the insurrection. quote:“Remember: The last time a first-term midterm worked out for a party in power was immediately after a major terrorist attack,” the GOP operative said. “If Democrats play their hand right and try to unify the country, while our candidates still talk about Trump, you can see how they defy the odds—maybe even pick up a [Senate] seat. There’s no guarantee for this cycle for Republicans, no matter how good things look on paper.” Rea fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's absolutely premature for 2022, but I do think that they missed the opportunity to correctly define how they wanted 2022 to be framed. It’s very anecdotal, but I live in deep red country and the only republicans that are still talking about politics at all are the ones who think that the inauguration is a secret trap that Trump will spring in order to arrest Biden and Harris and John Roberts all in one fell swoop. Which is another way of saying that whether or not the GOP will do well in 2022 is still entirely up in the air, but the RNC’s ability to determine their own fate has clearly passed out of their hands. The future of the Republican Party is controlled, for at least the foreseeable future, by internet nutters
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:It’s very anecdotal, but I live in deep red country and the only republicans that are still talking about politics at all are the ones who think that the inauguration is a secret trap that Trump will spring in order to arrest Biden and Harris and John Roberts all in one fell swoop. Yeah, also it's not clear how targeted that is on voting. I hate Paul Ryan but he's not quite as dumb as some of the others (and he still weighs in despite not being in the thick of things). Focusing on things like "Sanders runs the budget committee! Ohhh crazy!!" could maybe move asses among the rank and file normie Republicans. With the QAnon type stuff, it's not framed in such a way that the solution is voting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:Only one never to crack 50% approval Fake News! SAD! I have it on good authority from Trump himself that he is everyone's favorite president. Why would he lie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Republicans have to repeat what happened in 2009 and 2010, and that's make everyone forget that their policies caused the recession. This was helped by Dems doing absolutely nothing to punish the people responsible, like investment banks and mortgage companies. I'm not sure the Republican party can convince voters that they're no longer the party of Trump, when it's clear that their hardcore base really wants Trump still, and Trump is likely to keep reminding everyone of what an rear end in a top hat he is. Obviously, you can't make any predictions now, but I will say that even if the Dems do nothing but try to roll back the clock to 2016, they're probably maintaining power in 2022 because the Republican party is not going to be able to shed Trumpism that easily. Bird in a Blender fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
I don't think Trump is going to disappear from the national stage like Bush did after 2008. Even if there's no Trump News Network and no Trumps run for senate, half the presidential contenders are betting on being the next Trump and there are sure to be Republican candidates who intentionally tie themselves to him (if nothing else I think Marjorie Taylor Greene runs for senate). I think 2022 Democrats will be able to get the anti-Trump vote in a way that 2010 Democrats couldn't get the anti-Bush vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good academic article about using high progressive taxation to redistribute wealth post-ww2 in the US, where the top marginal rate was like 90%? Any search string I do ends up with conservatives talking about how the 1950's never happened an 30% top rates area actually the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I don't think Trump is going to disappear from the national stage like Bush did after 2008. Even if there's no Trump News Network and no Trumps run for senate, half the presidential contenders are betting on being the next Trump and there are sure to be Republican candidates who intentionally tie themselves to him (if nothing else I think Marjorie Taylor Greene runs for senate). I don't either but a lot of posters in these threads seem to think he'll be memory holed quick. The difference though is that Bush didn't care about being on TV and in the spotlight once he left office. That's all that Trump craves or even cares about. He thinks he IS America and so does roughly 1/3 of the country. In a way they're right. The other difference is that Trump himself is different - the GOP id writ large - the ultimate conservative RWM Frankenstein monster come to life and running amok tossing children down wells. He stomped all over every 2016 general establishment GOP run of the mill assholes in the primaries, who were ghouls in their own right, insulting them all at every turn as the CHUDS ate it up and cheered for more. They still think he was a great president and won the election. I've never seen this level of dug in cultish dedication before. He's not going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Does anyone have a good academic article about using high progressive taxation to redistribute wealth post-ww2 in the US, where the top marginal rate was like 90%? I struggled to find anything academic, but there's a couple things I found that can help. This article talks about how the top tax rate was paid by barely anyone simply because people didn't make enough to be taxed at that rate. The article I linked from the Roosevelt Institute is a response to an article from the Tax Foundation. quote:Greenberg points to their data series on effective top tax rates by income quantile. It shows that the effective tax rate for the top 1% of households (by income) was 42% in the 1950s, versus 36.4% today. Unfortunately, the Roosevelt article doesn't give numbers on what people made back in the 60's, but then I found this pdf from the Census Bureau which shows that the top 0.9% of the country was making $25,000 or more. This is good to remember because the top income bracket in 1960 was for people making $400,000 or more (equal to $3.5 million now). That would obviously be a tiny tiny fraction of the country. The tax rate at $25,000 was 43%. The median household income in 1960 was $5,620; today it's $58k, and the top 1% today make $538k. So we went from the top 1% making 4.4x the median income in 1960 to 9.3x the median income. 4.4x the median today is $258k, which is very good money, but would not quite put you into the "rich" category that most people think of. Now go to today and the top tax bracket is 37%, and starts at $622k for married couples. $622k in 1960 dollars would be like making $71k a year, and $71k a year in 1960 would've been taxed at 65%. It's hard to make apples to apples comparisons, but I think there's a few conclusions we can make. The 1% have way more money than the median household than they did back in 1960. The top 1% are also getting taxed at way less than they did back in 1960, essentially 65% at the top vs. 37% at the top. I think it's an easy conclusion to make that the rich have more money because the government is simply taking less of it, which also means there is more incentive to make more and more money. The incentive to go out and make more money goes down pretty fast when that extra dollar is getting taxed at a 70%, 80%, or a 90% rate. If you're a CEO looking at a $5 million/year salary, you might just say screw it, make it $1 million and invest the rest back into the company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 21:43
|
|