2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Are you arguing that voter suppression doesn't exist or that there will be no evidence directly tying Trump to election fraud?

That Trump has something to do with it. I also think Russia has influence. I just don't think Trump had anything to do with it.

[Astros19]

Yep, definitely losing it.
Quite the delicious read tonight.
Thank you all for the entertainment.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

That Trump has something to do with it. I also think Russia has influence. I just don't think Trump had anything to do with it.

I wouldn't take the other side of your proposed bet.

Side note: I'd like to see conservatives in this thread figuring out more distinctions between Democrats, leftists, and progressives by this point.

[NeedChapmans]

Sorry if this was already posted.

An amazing two minutes.

[NeedChapmans]

"My dad used to say, Joey, nobody is better than you, but you're no better than anybody else"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jopeal]

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I wouldn't take the other side of your proposed bet.

Side note: I'd like to see conservatives in this thread figuring out more distinctions between Democrats, leftists, and progressives by this point.

This is my dictionary. I'm sure others are completetly different but this is what I mean when I reference it at least.

At least for me I use lefties, Liberals and Dems interchangeably. Same for righties, conservatives and republicans.

Progressives (imo) have a negative connotation when it comes to money distribution. I look at progressives in a more positive connotation when it deals with advocating for underrepresented groups rights. There's a reason for this. I don't believe we are progressive by taking a large sum of money from the wealth just because the government says so. I do believe the government's job is to protect the people especially the underrepresented WITHOUT infringing on others rights. Essentially we need to make it equal for everyone.

I know there is a difference between socialism and communism but as far as I'm concerned when my government is controlling consumers decisions to that level it's basically communisms. Like I've said though, pure capitalisms is communism too. I pretty much have a problem with really anything that isn't regulated capitalism. I may differ with some only in the aspect that if the government feels that the economy isn't working as efficient as it could (not enough skilled labor, equipment etc.) it should interject to improve long term growth. Other than that, the government's job is to make sure businesses aren't acting too risky, reducing competition through price fixing, too many mergers etc. or being unethical.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

This is my dictionary. I'm sure others are completetly different but this is what I mean when I reference it at least.

At least for me I use lefties, Liberals and Dems interchangeably. Same for righties, conservatives and republicans.

Progressives (imo) have a negative connotation when it comes to money distribution. I look at progressives in a more positive connotation when it deals with advocating for underrepresented groups rights. There's a reason for this. I don't believe we are progressive by taking a large sum of money from the wealth just because the government says so. I do believe the government's job is to protect the people especially the underrepresented WITHOUT infringing on others rights. Essentially we need to make it equal for everyone.

I know there is a difference between socialism and communism but as far as I'm concerned when my government is controlling consumers decisions to that level it's basically communisms. Like I've said though, pure capitalisms is communism too. I pretty much have a problem with really anything that isn't regulated capitalism. I may differ with some only in the aspect that if the government feels that the economy isn't working as efficient as it could (not enough skilled labor, equipment etc.) it should interject to improve long term growth. Other than that, the government's job is to make sure businesses aren't acting too risky, reducing competition through price fixing, too many mergers etc. or being unethical.

Progressivism, at least to me, looks like an ideology and system where people at the bottom are more accounted for economically.
It doesn't mean implementing a system of which the goal is to directly stifle economic growth in order to close the wealth gap.
Until the world operates under a single monetary system, it's still beneficial to have long term economic growth in the U.S.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Progressivism, at least to me, looks like an ideology and system where people at the bottom are more accounted for economically.
It doesn't mean implementing a system of which the goal is to directly stifle economic growth in order to close the wealth gap.
Until the world operates under a single monetary system, it's still beneficial to have long term economic growth in the U.S.

This is my issue with that outlook. Distribution of money doesn't make anything efficient. It just gives more disposable income. I personally believe that companies can run their businesses better than the government can. The higher you increase taxes, the more you're saying businesses are doing poorly managing their company. If they were managing it correctly, it's workers shouldn't need the government's help.

Now I do believe there are a couple situations we run into. As I've made it clear, I'm not a fan off making the American people pay more for necessities to bring back 30 cent jobs from China. I'd rather just have a more skilled labor force where they aren't reliant on the government because they offer a skill that a business needs that's worth more than a skill that is provided for 30 cents in China. Business's also win with a more competitive and skilled labor force as well. So in that regard we probably both agree.

Where we differ is if the above is true, the government shouldn't really need to distribute wealth anymore since the majority of the population offer skills that are necessities and are compensated appropriately. I don't think the government should fund every major, but rather ones that have an actual need (in terms of a true demand for) in our society. Then either people will put in the work to be a productive citizen or won't and don't get any benefits from people who do try to provide.

[jstephens24]

Originally Posted by mike1498

For people who think Trump will alter results, can we please bet on this?

And no, your "evidence" can't be stupid conspiracies like the Russian probe that wasn't anything substantial.

Just when I thought you couldn't be more nuts than Trump, I read some of the lefties on this thread.

oh no you said the B word. JD is going to think your actually placing wagers

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

This is my issue with that outlook. Distribution of money doesn't make anything efficient. It just gives more disposable income. I personally believe that companies can run their businesses better than the government can. The higher you increase taxes, the more you're saying businesses are doing poorly managing their company. If they were managing it correctly, it's workers shouldn't need the government's help.

Now I do believe there are a couple situations we run into. As I've made it clear, I'm not a fan off making the American people pay more for necessities to bring back 30 cent jobs from China. I'd rather just have a more skilled labor force where they aren't reliant on the government because they offer a skill that a business needs that's worth more than a skill that is provided for 30 cents in China. Business's also win with a more competitive and skilled labor force as well. So in that regard we probably both agree.

Where we differ is if the above is true, the government shouldn't really need to distribute wealth anymore since the majority of the population offer skills that are necessities and are compensated appropriately. I don't think the government should fund every major, but rather ones that have an actual need (in terms of a true demand for) in our society. Then either people will put in the work to be a productive citizen or won't and don't get any benefits from people who do try to provide.

In principle I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I'll try to expound on my stance quickly before shutting down for the night.

Monetary distribution is a short term inefficiency, but potentially a skillful one in that it allows for more long term national economic stability. Turmoil for the poor in the country is not good for the country economically in the long run, regardless of which tax bracket you or I fall under (maybe good for news organizations and the prison-industrial complex but that's a separate topic).

Providing for legitimately stable economic circumstances for the poor and lower middle is in my view an investment in the future stability of the country.

One area, rarely discussed until recently due to covid is the instability of housing especially for the poor. Housing costs are a major expense for those trying to to lift themselves out of poverty. There need to be significant regulations in place to curb real estate entrepreneurs from using their wealth leverage to either directly or indirectly increase the expenses of low income renters and potential lower income home buyers. The unregulated/poorly regulated commodification of housing disproportionately affects the poor and lower middles chances of building any wealth.

Separately, wealth taxes are distinct from business taxes.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by jstephens24

oh no you said the B word. JD is going to think your actually placing wagers

Busted!

[quackhead]

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by pingbling23

Sounds like the “we’re going to be in a world war if trump wins” comments from 4 years ago.

Or moving out of the country.

[majestik101]

There's something unnerving about KH's cackle. Can't quite put my finger on it. It's as if she's hiding something.

[rman112]

My vote is for 4 more years of George.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

In principle I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I'll try to expound on my stance quickly before shutting down for the night.

Monetary distribution is a short term inefficiency, but potentially a skillful one in that it allows for more long term national economic stability. Turmoil for the poor in the country is not good for the country economically in the long run, regardless of which tax bracket you or I fall under (maybe good for news organizations and the prison-industrial complex but that's a separate topic).

Providing for legitimately stable economic circumstances for the poor and lower middle is in my view an investment in the future stability of the country.

One area, rarely discussed until recently due to covid is the instability of housing especially for the poor. Housing costs are a major expense for those trying to to lift themselves out of poverty. There need to be significant regulations in place to curb real estate entrepreneurs from using their wealth leverage to either directly or indirectly increase the expenses of low income renters and potential lower income home buyers. The unregulated/poorly regulated commodification of housing disproportionately affects the poor and lower middles chances of building any wealth.

Separately, wealth taxes are distinct from business taxes.

Couple things, which (I know you said you're shutting down so I'll be curious to hear your responses if you see this tomorrow).

Again, short term instability shouldn't exist if we train our labor force to produce a product or service where they are compensated a livable wage (hence why I think the trade war is stupid). This means two things, they learn a skill that's actually needed, and they're willing to work. As far as I'm concerned, some people won't fall into that category and personally, shouldn't reap any benefits because of it. I'm not saying the entity needs to choose your exact profession, but if you choose a profession where your wage can't fit your needs you choose to learn an useless skill (or at least for the wage you want).

Wealth tax and business tax are two different things. I don't know if it's fair to tax someone because they made more economical sound decisions than you did. Now I'll agree in the current system there isn't an even playing field. Some will just say that's life, but I think by evening out the playing field makes more competition which is better for consumers. Now what you do after you start at the same starting line is self dependent, but in some regards I don't believe you should be punished for something you can't control. The truth is the workforce would be more competitive and more efficient if everyone who was capable to learn a skill was provided the opportunity, but I don't believe that's offered currently. If it was offered, after what you do with it is your responsibility. I can give you a hammer but I'm not going to build the house. I also shouldn't fault you that you can build a bigger house. We both had a hammer, we just used it differently. Some people will say, go build your own hammer and find a way to use it. Some will say, make the government build the house. I truly believe we should invest into our workforce so we have the essentials to build our house but how we go about it is self dependent and we're responsible for the outcome.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by packman80

Give Trump credit he is at least visiting places that have little value and he's unlikely to win. Look at Hillary who decided she was too good to visit most states and it burned her.

This is what I find odd.

Why not focus on florida? Wisconsin? Michigan?

It's one electoral vote.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

This is what I find odd.

Why not focus on florida? Wisconsin? Michigan?

It's one electoral vote.

Maine has four electoral votes, not one, and it’s not a winner-take-all state. A split in votes could make the difference in a tight race.

[coachnip13]

Also, there is a key Senate race going on in Maine, so Republican presence can only help in that regard.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Also, there is a key Senate race going on in Maine, so Republican presence can only help in that regard.

I do not think Trump went to Maine to help Collins - she is on his $hit list.

I think the visit to Maine was his attempt to "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.

[steelcityguy]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Sorry if this was already posted.

An amazing two minutes.

Amazing two minutes is an understatement. This is pure comedy gold. But sad as well, because we all know Biden isn't all there and his family should be ashamed for allowing this at all. But we all know that if he wins, Kamalama Ding Dong will end up as POTUS in record time. You think Trump is bad, wait till this crazy Indian-American now suddenly turned African-American gets into office.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

I do not think Trump went to Maine to help Collins - she is on his $hit list.

I think the visit to Maine was his attempt to "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.

Whether he likes her or not, he knows that Republicans need Senate seats.

I think the campaign directors are a little more sophisticated than "hey, let's try Maine!!".

[Boo]

Who would have thought that not listening to police commands would lead to something bad?

[fungi2510]

Originally Posted by steelcityguy

Amazing two minutes is an understatement. This is pure comedy gold. But sad as well, because we all know Biden isn't all there and his family should be ashamed for allowing this at all. But we all know that if he wins, Kamalama Ding Dong will end up as POTUS in record time. You think Trump is bad, wait till this crazy Indian-American now suddenly turned African-American gets into office.

What does her ethnicity have anything to do with her ability to run a country?