|
this is a really good article
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's worth keeping in mind that bullshit right wing talking point isn't actually working; people hate the tax cuts. Where I'm sort of wavering is if PayGo is helpful in some respects in raising taxes on the rich. By expressly linking those raised taxes on the rich to social programs, do you make it easier to raise taxes on the rich and squash opposition to those tax hikes, or is it better to just have tax hikes on the rich for the purpose of paying down the deficit/everyone pays their fair share/etc? I'm leaning towards the former because people need to realize (and they're starting to) that tax cuts are not free - they take away the social programs you like and the important government spending you approve of. Why should the rich and corporations pay more in taxes? Well, either because we need to decrease the deficit, or because we need to spend money on important things. Or both. But I think that "spending money on important things" is better messaging for Democrats, because just focusing on the deficit isn't gonna get people nearly as enthused about tax hikes. i'm always wary of trying to co-opt a right wing talking point because the right has a way more unified and bigger propaganda network, and are also better at just pushing talking points to begin with (remember that "fake news" was originally a dem creation). even if it was possible to do, the current democratic party is just not capable of it and will only undermine themselves by trying.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think you need a justification to raise taxes, and the best two I see are that that they are needed to "pay for" something, or that they're needed to reduce the deficit/pay down the debt. I think it's necessary to raise taxes on the rich and on corporations, I think the better political message is the former, so I generally agree with it. I also think it's important to link taxes to what you pay for with those taxes, precisely to fight back against Republican efforts to claim tax cuts are free money - people need to understand that when Republicans say "cut taxes" they also mean "and cut spending later" even though they try to hide that fact. i don't have any problem with rhetorically linking tax raises to increases in social spending, that's all well and good. what i do oppose is implementing something like PAYGO because that needlessly ties your hands as a legislator. there's no benefit to doing that and it's just the party letting themselves be spooked by republican talking points.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Madkal posted:When Donald insulted a gold star family the veil was lifted and surprising absolutely no-one Republicans didn't care. They still shouted "support our troops you unpatriotic traitor" while their leader farted away. You would think Donald not giving a flying gently caress about World War I casualties would be a big deal for them but they only "care about the troops" insomuch as they can shout at other people about "not caring about the troops". its been obvious from day 1. the idea that you can support the troops while also supporting 2 pointless wars based on lies has always been absurd. also what happened with Max Cleland.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
is the questioning going to be in person? because i'm having trouble even imagining trump responding to a question with "i plead the fifth" as opposed to lying
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
i can't loving believe he would turn the medal of freedom into a joke
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
predicto posted:Umm. I can believe it. whoosh
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
CIA....welcome to the #resistance
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
JasonV posted:Trump is having it out with supreme court judges on Twitter. That can't be a great legal strategy..... yeah it's funny, they're trying to keep the myth of the impartial court going and he just casually strides through and tears up the backdrop because he doesn't get that it would benefit him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
JasonV posted:Can't wait till the Dems get some teeth... don't hold your breath, there's no way the current democratic party is anywhere near bold enough to make big changes to the US-Saudi relationship, they're the cornerstone of current US middle east policy. the most believable part of this is that they're going to examine how stable the current house of saud is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Wait, what? There are people who think a Saudi Arabia-Iran war won't involve the US? Am I reading this correctly? they fight through proxy wars (like yemen) and the US supplies the saudis with weapons / probably other shady services, but doesn't send actual troops or bombers in large scale opposition to iran directly
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
RBG was 75 in 2008. that she didnt resign when dems controlled everything was just arrogance on her part. a 60 year old justice has the luxury of waiting around 10-15 years for the president and senate to flip to their party, a 75 year old should immediately jump when they have the chance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Data Graham posted:My question is whether businesses are being actually socially conscious nowadays, i.e. pulling advertising from Fox News shows, taking stands that cause chuds to boycott them, etc; or whether it's all calculated and performative and aimed at shareholder profits in the end anyway many companies are in fact responsive to PR concerns out of self interest in preserving public perception of their brand. for example papa johns after firing their racist founder is now running PR to try and rehabilitate their image. this is obviously insufficient however since a) it's mostly reactive b) the public eye can't be on everything every company does forever c) some companies don't give a poo poo since their business is evil to begin with
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 17:08
|
|