Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, downzy said:

 Because if the 2016 election taught us anything, saying dumb shit in debates doesn’t matter. 

They’ll both sound like rambling idiots. One because he is an idiot, the other because he has battled with a speech impediment his entire life. 

Exactly.  Biden will have a canned and rehearsed response for almost every question or issue. Even if he doesn’t have an answer he’ll pivot to something he is prepared for. 

Debates are useless 

I always seemed to favor the guy that "spoke from his heart" vs a guy with a "canned response".  (Historically)

 Pretty sure that's why I voted for Ross Perot the first time I ever voted.  I  liked his no nonsense approach and direct responses; without blinking an eye.  I was 18 years old and didn't understand much in terms of "political ideologies" at the time.  Little did I know my vote was essentially a vote for Clinton at the time. :lol:

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    3974

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1525

  • classicrawker

    1519

  • soon

    1478

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

Come on guys, don't act like me and soon in here.  :P

Slap Fight GIFs | Tenor

 

:lol:

But they are both using facts and making sense... so is not really comparable ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I always seemed to favor the guy that "spoke from his heart" vs a guy with a "canned response".  (Historically)

 Pretty sure that's why I voted for Ross Perot the first time I ever voted.  I  liked his no nonsense approach and direct responses; without blinking an eye.  I was 18 years old and didn't understand much in terms of a "political ideologies" at the time.  Little did I know my vote was essentially a vote for Clinton at the time. :lol:

So their track records, policies, attitudes toward certain values - that means less in how you’re voting than how well someone can sell?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, downzy said:

So their track records, policies, attitudes toward certain values - that means less in how you’re voting than how well someone can sell?  

:lol:

I said "historically" and that was mostly in reference to when I was younger.  I'm not going to say who I have voted for since then but some of you would be surprised.  (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it in here before. ;)

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

:lol:

I said "historically" and that was mostly in reference to when I was younger.  I'm not going to say who I have voted for since then but some of you would be surprised.  (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it in here before. ;)

I know you voted for Obama both times and I think Bush in either 2000 and/or 2004.

No clue who you voted for in 2016. Third party?

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

I promise no name calling 😁

See, he knows his position is hollow and therefore resorts to name calling in place of substance. You dont even know your ideas need such an assist. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

I know you voted for Obama both times and I think Bush in either 2000 and/or 2004.

No clue who you voted for in 2016. Third party?

Close. 

I had just graduated college in 2000 so I still was in my "liberal college days" mode back then.  In 2004 I was upset that we had gone to war with Iraq.  (I did not believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 so I did not understand the purpose)  So I guess you can put 2 & 2 together. :lol:

In 2016 I was not able to vote due to things beyond my control.  (Had to do with the ability to register in time).

 

I will say though, that I tend to like some republican candidates after the fact.  In hindsight, Mitt Romney was a solid candidate in 2012.  He would actually make a very good moderate candidate as a democrat or republican, imo. (No one on the republican ticket had a chance in 2012, imo, Obama was doing a solid job at the time and the country was coming out of the recession)

I'm also nowhere near as upset at W as I was in 2008.  Back then, everything seemed to be falling apart both nationally (and personally).  But looking back, he did a very good job keeping the country together after 9/11;  his administration helped avoid any sort of "national panic and/or frenzy".  I wonder had he not decided to go to war with Iraq, how differently his presidency would be regarded among historians. 

Also, looking back, George H. Bush was a decent president, imo.  Most of his policies would be considered "moderate leaning" nowadays.  He helped bring the Cold War to an end.  He also handled the Gulf War the way the Iraq war should have been handled, imo.   He took a lot of criticism for not overtaking Saddam Hussein's regime back then...but in hindsight, it was likely the correct decision based on what happened after the Iraq War invasion, many years later.  Had Ross Perot not run, he would have likely been re-elected for a 2nd term, despite the economic recession at the time, imo.

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

See, he knows his position is hollow and therefore resorts to name calling in place of substance. You dont even know your ideas need such an assist. :lol:

You're on a passive aggressive rampage today, huh?  Which one of my positions is hollow, in your opinion? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

You're on a passive aggressive rampage today, huh?  Which one of my positions is hollow, in your opinion? 

No Im not. :lol: I just like logic, reason and facts. But you are typically confused and I understand that.

The positions I have already called out, obviously. The ones you only name called in repose to. And when that failed you lied about my emotional state for some reason. It fairly straight forward. :lol:

Edited by soon
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soon said:

No Im not. :lol: I just like logic, reason and facts. But you are typically confused and I understand that.

The positions I have already called out, obviously. The ones you name called in repose to. It fairly straight forward. :lol:

Are you still talking about "destroying a police car"?

What part of (defending) throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car is using logic, reason and facts?  I can see stating it happened as "factual" but you'll need to explain the logic and reasoning behind it.  

As far as material things are concerned, I think we as people enjoy them and they generally tend to make life easier and (possibly) more enjoyable. 

But to state that I "fetishize" over any material belonging is devoid of knowing anything about who I am or what I believe in as a person.  I value God above all things and I am eternally grateful for my existence, followed by family, friends, and the people I love.  After that, good health and safety would likely rank next...followed by the simpler things in life.  (Pets are somewhere in the mix as well. ;))

Material belongings, in my world, are tools to help you realize what the most important things in life are, not the other way around. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Are you still talking about "destroying a police car"?

What part of (defending) throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car is using logic, reason and facts?  I can see stating it happened as "factual" but you'll need to explain the logic and reasoning behind it.  

As far as material things are concerned, I think we as people enjoy them and they generally tend to make life easier and (possibly) more enjoyable. 

But to state that I "fetishize" over any material belonging is devoid of knowing anything about who I am or what I believe in as a person.  I value God above all things and I am eternally grateful for my existence, followed by family, friends, and the people I love.  After that, good health and safety would likely rank next...followed by the simpler things in life.  (Pets are somewhere in the mix as well. ;))

Material belongings, in my world, are tools to help you realize what the most important things in life are, not the other way around. 

 

This post demonstrates how little of what I said you managed to understand. :lol:

You trolled yourself into actually believing that my calling out your ad hominem attacks in place of substance indicated my emotional state :lol: 

I feel gratitude to you for crystallizing for me why your republic is falling apart in real time.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bernie-sanders-tax-billionaires-pandemic-health-care-204709337.html

Quote

The Make Billionaires Pay Act would tax the $731 billion in wealth accumulated by the richest 0.001% of America between March 18 through August 5. This would apply towards 467 individuals.

Good, make the bloodsuckers pay! Can't wait to hear the defense of these people from people who will never be near this rich and are probably looked down up and hated by these same billionaires. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, soon said:

This post demonstrates how little of what I said you managed to understand. :lol:

You trolled yourself into actually believing that my calling out your ad hominem attacks in place of substance indicated my emotional state :lol: 

I feel gratitude to you for crystallizing for me why your republic is falling apart in real time.  

There never was a serious ad hominem attack.   It was a joke and I've repeatedly stated that and it was evident in the original post itself

You, on the other hand, conveniently ignored the myriad of subsequent posts that clearly stated that fact.  After my "joke" I went on to "substance" but you ignored that as well. 

You went on a series of passive aggressive ad homen attacks completely devoid of substance.  I took them as "jokes" but apparently, you were serious?

I am not asking for your "forgiveness" because I have done nothing (in this series of back and forth banter) that violates any of the generally accepted  "back and forth debate" and banter within the thread itself.

If you can't take a joke...when you literally do it all-day-long here, to just about anyone/everyone who disagrees with you, then maybe it's you that lacks understanding.  

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

There never was a serious ad hominem attack.   It was a joke and I've repeatedly stated that and it was evident in the original post itself

I didnt comment on if you meant it or not. :facepalm: 

Its that you said it in place of substance. In place of a real response. And Ive already clarified this obvious fact numerous times for you.

And yet here you are trying to carrying on with it. But you cant have it both ways. When you stop putting forward substance and replace the debating of a position with ad hominem attacks, any interlocutor worth their salt will call you out on it. You have failed to offer any reasonable way forward after retreating to purely ad hominem attacks. That doesnt reflect on me in any way whatsoever. Im sorry that this aspect of discussion is a foreign concept to you.

Have a good great rest of your evening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, soon said:

I didnt comment on if you meant it or not. :facepalm: 

Its that you said it in place of substance. In place of a real response. And Ive already clarified this obvious fact numerous times for you.

And yet here you are trying to carrying on with it. But you cant have it both ways. When you stop putting forward substance and replace the debating of a position with ad hominem attacks, any interlocutor worth their salt will call you out on it. You have failed to offer any reasonable way forward after retreating to purely ad hominem attacks. That doesnt reflect on me in any way whatsoever. Im sorry that this aspect of discussion is a foreign concept to you.

Have a good great rest of your evening. 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I literally followed it up with substantive posts that YOU IGNORED.   Yes, I made a joke when you were being serious.  You have done the same exact thing at least a half dozen times today alone...and not just to me but you've repeatedly done it to @Swampfox and @SoulMonster over the course of the past month.  

Maybe stop with with your passive aggressive, ad hominen attacks so that you don't come across as being extremely hypocritical.    It really just looks like a feeble attempt at trying to portray yourself as "holier than thou"....you can do much better. 

Your overall statements of my intent (or understanding) are not remotely close to the truth or what transpired.  That said, have a great evening as well. 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bernie-sanders-tax-billionaires-pandemic-health-care-204709337.html

Good, make the bloodsuckers pay! Can't wait to hear the defense of these people from people who will never be near this rich and are probably looked down up and hated by these same billionaires. 

I mean...on the surface it looks like a "feel good" effort to help the country during times of crisis, especially if you have a disdain for billionaires.   :lol:

That said, the vast majority of the wealth of the billionaires that were discussed in the article is based off their ownership of stock in the companies they created.   The gains they made could literally disappear overnight.  Bernie Sanders, out of all people, should know this.  Smh. 

If that bill were to pass, there would likely be a stock market crash.  (The people that invest in stocks do not want to see their investments forcefully annexed by the state)    Those "gains" would be nothing but an afterthought.   

It's unfortunate that now even politicians are buying into the headlines that "Jeff Bezos" made 13 billion in one day.   Errr...he actually didn't.  Not unless he sold his shares of stock that day.  

And let's just pretend the bill passes and the stock market stays the same.  How can you force someone to sell their shares of a company?  Those "gains" are not "gains" until the stocks are liquidated.  There would be lawsuits blocking the potential sale of stock not just by Jeff Bezos, but from other shareholders as well.  You cannot risk the financial stability of a company by forcing its largest shareholder to liquidate his stock.  

Like I said, the idea on the surface seems like a "Robin Hood" story.  In reality, it's nothing but the big bad wolf, trying to blow your house down.  :lol:

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I mean...on the surface it looks like a "feel good" effort to help the country during times of crisis, especially if you have a disdain for billionaires.   :lol:

That said, the vast majority of the wealth of the billionaires that were discussed in the article is based off their ownership of stock in the companies they created.   The gains they made could literally disappear overnight.  Bernie Sanders, out of all people, should know this.  Smh. 

If that bill were to pass, there would likely be a stock market crash.  (The people that invest in stocks do not want to see their investments forcefully annexed by the state)    Those "gains" would be nothing but an afterthought.   

It's unfortunate that now even politicians are buying into the headlines that "Jeff Bezos" made 13 billion in one day.   Errr...he actually didn't.  Not unless he sold his shares of stock that day.  

And let's just pretend the bill passes and the stock market stays the same.  How can you force someone to sell their shares of a company?  Those "gains" are not "gains" until the stocks are liquidated.  There would be lawsuits blocking the potential sale of stock not just by Jeff Bezios, but from other shareholders as well.  You cannot risk the financial stability of a company by forcing its largest shareholder to liquidate his stock.  

Like I said, the idea on the surface seems like a "Robin Hood" story.  In reality, it's nothing but the big bad wolf, trying to blow your house down.  :lol:

Well yes a one time huge tax like that could cause issues. But I'm totally in favor of raising capital gains taxes on these people and of wealth taxes on people in the top % of the country. In general, I support any policy that tightens the wallets of the super rich. They are the oligarch's of our country and anything that weakens them is good in my eyes.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well yes a one time huge tax like that could cause issues. But I'm totally in favor of raising capital gains taxes on these people and of wealth taxes on people in the top % of the country. In general, I support any policy that tightens the wallets of the super rich. They are the oligarch's of our country and anything that weakens them is good in my eyes.

Many (if not most) of the top billionaires in the U.S. will likely donate the majority of their wealth to charity when they pass on.  The billionaires that signed the pledge have pledged around 1.2 trillion to date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

The way to get through to them is not by forcefully taxing their wealth or annexing their companies (lol), imo.  If I were a congressman, I would negotiate with "The Giving Pledge" campaign in order for them make substantial donations that go directly to the people most affected by the pandemic. 

In return, they would not be forced to sell portions of the companies they created by some sort of crazy "one time tax" and they could have input on where their donations go.  For example, they could have a choice between donating it to unemployed people due to the pandemic....or people who lost family members ....or front line workers....or small businesses, etc. (And I mean real small businesses....not the free for all from the CARES ACT..)   AND the funds would be given directly to the public with no red tape or pork barrel politics. 

Bernie Sanders' idea that somehow taxing them to the tune of 600 billion to pay for health insurance is beyond puzzling.  For starters, most folks affected by the pandemic are not worried about their health insurance.  They know that they will get treated for free if they get sick due to Covid.  They are worried about putting food on the table for their families, paying their mortgages/rent and being able to make their car payments. 

 That's my 2 cents. ;) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Many (if not most) of the top billionaires in the U.S. will likely donate the majority of their wealth to charity when they pass on.  The billionaires that signed the pledge have pledged around 1.2 trillion to date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

The way to get through to them is not by forcefully taxing their wealth or annexing their companies (lol), imo.  If I were a congressman, I would negotiate with "The Giving Pledge" campaign in order for them make substantial donations that go directly to the people most affected by the pandemic. 

In return, they would not be forced to sell portions of the companies they created by some sort of crazy "one time tax" and they could have input on where their donations go.  For example, they could have a choice between donating it to unemployed people due to the pandemic....or people who lost family members ....or front line workers....or small businesses, etc. (And I mean real small businesses....not the free for all from the CARES ACT..)   AND the funds would be given directly to the public with no red tape or pork barrel politics. 

Bernie Sanders' idea that somehow taxing them to the tune of 600 billion to pay for health insurance is beyond puzzling.  For starters, most folks affected by the pandemic are not worried about their health insurance.  They know that they will get treated for free if they get sick due to Covid.  They are worried about putting food on the table for their families, paying their mortgages/rent and being able to make their car payments. 

 That's my 2 cents. ;) 

 

That's nice and all that some of these folks pledge of give money at the end of their lives, but during their lives they are bribing politicians and controlling media corporations! And some of the worst offenders at that aren't even giving pledge people. Why would anyone want to be ruled by an oligarchy? I don't understand how many Americans (who themselves will never be rich) will defend these characters.

I want to create a system that still has wealthy people, but not people that are so wealthy that they can control the nation. The sovereign should reign supreme over these people, not the other way around (which is what we have in America).

Edit: I don't understand how your plan is any different than what we have now? Billionaire's are free to give as much as they want to charity now and they can pick whichever one they want or create their own.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Swampfox said:

Your guy smells underage girls hair.

Uh? Trump made it clear that he grab them by the pussy. And you call out Biden because he likes to smell girls hair? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I want to create a system that still has wealthy people, but not people that are so wealthy that they can control the nation. The sovereign should reign supreme over these people, not the other way around (which is what we have in America).

I don't see how that would work. I mean, even if individuals are not so wealthy alone that they can control the nation, they could still come together in groups - piling their resources - and control the nation. Right?

Then I look at my own country which also allows for people to become really wealthy, yet we don't have the problems that you claim to see in USA, where media and politicians are bought by individuals. We don't allow for such corruption. We have laws securing a free press and makes it illegal to run political advertisements, limits political donations, etc. I am not going to go into the details (mostly because I don't know them), but my point is, aren't there examples proving that you can have a country where capitalism allows for individuals to amass vast fortunes yet keep democracy running nicely, Norway included? (And also prevent too big inequality in wealth by safety nets, minimum wages, fair taxes, etc). Because I don't see that taxing the super rich to disarm them from the ability to buy politicians and the media will work when they can just group together. It is the underlying system that allows this corruption that is the problem.

Just some thoughts. I won't get to follow-up since I will be on a mountain hike. Cheerio!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't see how that would work. I mean, even if individuals are not so wealthy alone that they can control the nation, they could still come together in groups - piling their resources - and control the nation. Right?

Then I look at my own country which also allows for people to become really wealthy, yet we don't have the problems that you claim to see in USA, where media and politicians are bought by individuals. We don't allow for such corruption. We have laws securing a free press and makes it illegal to run political advertisements, limits political donations, etc. I am not going to go into the details (mostly because I don't know them), but my point is, aren't there examples proving that you can have a country where capitalism allows for individuals to amass vast fortunes yet keep democracy running nicely, Norway included? (And also prevent too big inequality in wealth by safety nets, minimum wages, fair taxes, etc). Because I don't see that taxing the super rich to disarm them from the ability to buy politicians and the media will work when they can just group together. It is the underlying system that allows this corruption that is the problem.

Just some thoughts. I won't get to follow-up since I will be on a mountain hike. Cheerio!

You've been in the U.S. So have I. We've seen homless people, just not 2 or 3 guys, huge numbers. And the number of homeless is getting bigger every day. You don't see much of  that in Norway.

You mention minimun wages. In the U.S. a guy flipping burgers at McDonal's had to beg for 15 bucks!!! Still there isn't much you can afford with that money. The gap between the have and have not is way too big in the U.S. Of course it can't be fixed with taxes alone. And I don't want the U.S. to be the Socialist Republic Of America, by no means!. But something needs to be done to narrow the gap as much as possible for the have not. In the U.S. the whole system is rotten to the core.  And I don't see the super rich nor politicians wiiling to come together and fix it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That's nice and all that some of these folks pledge of give money at the end of their lives, but during their lives they are bribing politicians and controlling media corporations! And some of the worst offenders at that aren't even giving pledge people. Why would anyone want to be ruled by an oligarchy? I don't understand how many Americans (who themselves will never be rich) will defend these characters.

I want to create a system that still has wealthy people, but not people that are so wealthy that they can control the nation. The sovereign should reign supreme over these people, not the other way around (which is what we have in America).

Edit: I don't understand how your plan is any different than what we have now? Billionaire's are free to give as much as they want to charity now and they can pick whichever one they want or create their own.

There will always be a level of corporate influence.  We often forget that corporations are people. The vast majority of Americans are employed by private sector corporations.  At least half of those, are employed by very large corporations.

EmploymentUSbranchFredgr.png

 

Corporations also drive the U.S. Stock Market, which holds close to half of all Americans' retirement funds and/or savings.  I'm not sure that calling their influence on politics would make the U.S. an Oligarchy. 

An Oligarchy, by definition, is a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.  The U.S. does not fit that definition.  

It's almost the opposite, actually.  There are over 11,000 corporate lobbyists in the U.S. (Who lobby for their companies)  and hundreds more of special interest groups. (Who lobby for their organizations).   Then add on unions, military, farming, etc...and Congress People's Constituents, etc etc .  Washington DC is influenced by thousands of people on a daily basis...not a small, select, few. 

Are there certain individuals that could have influence, if they chose to?  Probably.  But keep in mind most of the billionaires you are referring to are set for life 1,000 times over.  Do they hire lobbyists for the companies they run?  Of course they do.  But it's not nearly the "conspiracy theory" some seem to think it is.  

Which Tech Companies Spend the Most Money On Lobbying?

Those numbers don't seem that "out of line" based on the sizes of the companies, the services they provide and the people they employ.

Leading lobbying industries U.S. 2019 | Statista

 

 

As you can see, Washington DC is influenced by a wide variety of companies and organizations...as well as constituents in Congressional Districts. 

Could there be corruption?  Sure, it's possible.  But more times than not, especially in the year 2020...the elements within society, that have nefarious intentions, seem to be getting "busted" on a regular basis.  (Just think of the myriad of whistlelowers in just the past 10 years... Chelsey Manning, Snowden, etc)  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

On top of that, you have movements like #metoo and the Epstein scandal.

If the current political climate has one plus, it's that the entire country, both right and left are looking to pounce on the next corrupt politician, business, etc etc.  It's harder to get away with blatant corruption now, than it has been (possibly ever).    The old "buddy buddy" system seems to be extinct and it's been replaced by "I need to watch my back, there's whistleblowers and spies everywhere", etc. 

Logic would dictate that the vast majority of billionaires do not want to get caught up in a scandal or corruption that could put their families and fortunes in jeopardy.  Now greed is greed and power is power so one could surmise that there's still some of that going on out there....but I don't think it's a "bad" as some people think it is.

 

Now back to the topic...lol.

It wouldn't be quite the same as it is now.  Congress would petition the highest paid billionaires to give direct financial support to people affected by covid.  There's a million ways to do it.  The fact that there is already a bill in congress (that likely won't pass) should be enough leverage to at least get negotiations started.   

The money they donate could be distributed through the IRS and/or the treasury so that it can be tracked and accounted for.   They could pledge something like $1200 per month, for 3 months,  to 30 million unemployed Americans.   That adds up to 36 billion dollars per month, 108 billion total.   That's less than 10% of the "Giving Pledge" and that's only one campaign.  If the country continues to struggle after 3 months, then petition again, etc.  

 

Anyway, it's just an idea.  A little far fetched, I know...but it's 2020...so you never know.  :lol:

 

 

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...