American Politics

[Talon87]

Blagh. I wrote a good two to three pages' worth of response but in the end I'm not comfortable posting it here nor with the time commitment required to defend or explain my nuanced position. So I'll just keep this one, Poké-relevant comparison and leave it at that:

In BLM, you see N. In them, I see Ghetsis.

In Dr. King, you see N. In Dr. King, I also see N.

[Concept]

>Hitler comparisons

I'm likely to be a hypocrite here because I have a massive temper so have probably made them somewhere down the line. However; Hitler comparisons are so emotionally charged that you know full well when making them that the only thing you're going to achieve is to make the other person angry and defensive. If you're sufficiently pissed off to use them, be a better person than me and go cool off for a little bit before replying. If you're not pissed off and you're using them (ie if you're level-headedly doing something you know full well will achieve literally nothing but making the other person defensive and angry, regardless of whether you think it's a justified comparison or not) then you don't really have any place in a civilised debate to begin with.

Perhaps rather than saying "Trump did this, Hitler said something similar, therefore BAD!" We could instead say "Trump said this, which is a bad thing because" and just skip the comparisons altogether.

(Personally I think the comparison has some validity but it's never going to achieve anything constructive in debate so).

[Mercutio]

It is perfectly legitimate to compare him to a right wing populist such as Le Pen or Farage. There are many parallels.

Comparing him to Hitler is less sensible.

[Shuckle]

So I apologize. I was sloppy and careless and created a message that could be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood. The points, summarized concisely below, that I was TRYING to make, but did not articulate in a way that would really make sense on a debate board:

But first: BLM is not a stupid group because their message or their point is stupid. I apologize if this seemed to be my point - it absolutely is not. I strongly support the right of BLM to organize and I also strongly support their message.

I called BLM a "stupid" group because it's disorganized and mostly composed of young, politically inexperienced protestors. It didn't even have a message until basically this month, it was just "black people are dying and that is a bad thing!" Which is why you see stuff like "#alllivesmatter" because the response to that message is "So what? Lots of people die. Why is it special that black people are dying?" And BLM didn't have a response to that for a while. Oh, people here and there did, explaining about police brutality and fear of violence, but as a movement BLM basically just ignored #ALM and similar responses because they didn't know how to handle that criticism.

As BLM coalesces and gains strength and purpose, it will also gain power as a movement because the problems and solutions that it brings are much clearer. Especially if an experienced political manager steps in to assist them. Which is where the "conspiracy" came from. It's mostly just analysis and speculation. Sorry if I made it out to be anything else.

Hillary's strategy relies on 3 things:

1. Conservatives acting in traditional reactionary conservative ways
2. Media coverage of her pet issues
3. Her identity and her ethos as a career politician
4. Fear (my biggest issue with the Clinton campaign and the main reason I'll probably vote Trump in November)

#1 makes Trump a "yuuuge" screwball in her plan and it's why her victories in strawpolls are so narrow. Even though Trump "feels" like a Republican, he is not conservative. Like Hillary, he is fairly moderate, but unlike Hillary, he does not hold strong conservative stances. This could cause problems for Hillary, who doesn't have much else to attack him on. So far the Dems are going strong with "literally hitler" due to Trump's nationalist ideology, but beyond that and "crazy racist" it's kind of hard to taunt him on anything else.

Thoughts below. You don't have to agree, but this is why I don't consider Trump to be anything like Hitler - and where they are similar, it's not nearly as bad for Trump as it is for Hitler:

Spoiler: show

Essentially, the difference boils down to ethnic purity.

Trump is not about race. Explicitly. Nothing about Trump's policies has anything to do with race. He simply wishes to enforce existing laws regarding illegal immigration. Just look at his would-be assassin, an illegal immigrant...who was a white man from Britain, who would have been deported under a Trump administration.

The ideology behind American nationalism, which is why I call it "patriotism" instead of "nationalism", is that anyone who wants to be an American can be an American. "American" does not represent an ethnic or racial identity; it is a culture, a territory, and a spiritual ideal. As a nation of immigrants, America represents something to nationalistic Americans - not an ethnic identity, but a political and national identity.

Beyond their nationalistic bent there is essentially nothing to meaningfully compare that couldn't be found in thousands of other public figures. Not fair to point at Trump and say "He is very charismatic! Definitely Hitler."

But the worst part, and the one that makes me frustrated, is that when Trump is compared to Hitler, his supporters are invariably brought up. Why does that matter? They aren't Trump and their words aren't Trump's. That's like saying Abraham Lincoln was a racist because some slave owners voted for him. It's a worthless argument and doesn't deserve a response.

#2 is what I was whining about. I don't like the use of the media in this way. I never have and never will. Honestly this complaint is barely about Hillary, who is simply using the tools at her disposal. Really it's about the massive influence mass media has over public opinion. I find it abhorrent to manipulate the public like this, and I think it should be used a lot more responsibly than that - to bring attention to all important issues, not just the problems that your favorite politician is fighting to solve.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a campaign.

I admit I did overreach. I think it's possible that Hillary or someone associated with Hillary reached out to BLM. BLM has HISTORICALLY been super disorganized and useless as a movement, so to see them start to really coalesce into a strong movement is very suspicious, especially this close to an election where one of the candidates holds positions eerily similar to BLM's.

#3 puts her on shaky ground and this is where Trump is going to slaughter her in debates. Her record is NOT pretty, especially compared to her current positions. Makes her look a lot like a liar. And she also has some other nasty stuff in her past. Plus the email scandal isn't going to help. She can try though! If she can withstand a Trump debate she can probably take some swing states and have a fighting chance.

#4 is where I draw the line. I'm voting for Trump because of this. I don't have time to elaborate, but I will later when I get back from class. The main points:

- Hillary's campaign is based on fear.
--Fear of Trump, fear of Republicans, fear of guns, fear of the rich, and fear of police are the main ones but there are others
-She is divisive and is taking uncharacteristically strong stances on controversial issues in order to gain outrage-votes.
-Donald Trump is a scapegoat. He is made out to be "the representation of everything that is wrong with this country."

I don't like this. As people were (inaccurately) saying about Trump earlier this year, a President should be a uniter, not a divider. And Hillary's actions are pretty much tailored to rip the country apart along political lines, while absorbing up movements like BLM in order to secure minority votes and win elections.

A Hillary victory is not a victory for diversity. It's a victory for the kind of uncompromising thinking, intolerance, childishness, and other-ism that led to the gridlock and government shutdown back in 2012.

I don't mind most of Hillary's policies. But the way she pushes them suggests something very dangerous.

[Talon87]

Also on Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that Mr Trump filed a lawsuit against Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide.

Mr Trump is seeking $10 million (£7.6 million) in damages for alleged breach of confidentiality.

Trump is like a classical Chinese villain. This is like something Cao Cao would do. "Thank you for all your loyal service. Now, ... die. " Bet that guy sorely regrets drinking the Trump Kool-Aid now!

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Trump is like a classical Chinese villain. This is like something Cao Cao would do. "Thank you for all your loyal service. Now, ... die. " Bet that guy sorely regrets drinking the Trump Kool-Aid now!

http://nypost.com/2014/02/17/trump-f...t-sam-nunberg/

Nunberg sent Trump off into an interview with Buzzfeed, which was about as good an idea as you'd expect. I have a hard time believing Nunberg "drank the Kool-Aid" since he kind of tried to wreck Trump's campaign.

It sounds to me almost like Nunberg fled to the opposition after being fired in an act of revenge, possibly spilling information about Trump's campaign. This would definitely be worth an action from Trump, and a hefty one at that. Without more information though, it's probably more likely that Trump is just being Trump and throwing money around like it's kleenex.

[Slash]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Without more information though, it's probably more likely that Drumpf is just being Drumpf and throwing money around like it's kleenex.

The fact you can say this statement and also support Trump as a Presidental candidate is a bit jarring

As far as BLM, yeah, it's a bit stupid. The idea behind the movement is great, but it's still pretty disorganised and many many cops being shitty human beings who abuse the huge amounts of power they have isn't going to make this an easy fight at all. There will be no real resolution any time soon, maybe not ever, because of how politically protected police are from such things. Especially since a lot on the right wing are pushing for even more tape for them to hide behind.

[phoopes]

On my phone so I won't take a whole lot of time to respond but I find it funny that Shuckle isn't voting for Hillary because her campaign is based on fear when the reason why so many people support Trump is because of his fearmongering. The "silent majority" is afraid of "them," the outsiders that Trump has pointed out. He has encouraged white people to be afraid of Mexicans and Muslims via his now infamous statements on both groups. You make the point about America being a nation of immigrants and that you don't have to be a certain race/religion to be American, but Trump wants to ban Muslims from entering the country, legally or not. That is not the sign of a policitican who will unite the country.

[Mercutio]

Don't forget how incredibly misogynistic he is!

[Concept]

Opinions on Pence as a running mate? Literally never heard of the guy before today.

[phoopes]

I don't know anything about him either other than this:

[Stealthy]

Originally Posted by Concept

Opinions on Pence as a running mate? Literally never heard of the guy before today.

There's a reason for that. He's basically a C tier pick for VP. I mean, it was definitely Trump's best option, but he's still a pretty flawed pick. Trump's catering to the base here, in picking a guy who's a "generic republican" (a 50something year old white guy and red state governor), but who's also a Tea Party conservative. He's also got congressional experience to help with pushing a legislative agenda. It's ticket balancing... but ticket balancing that really only appeals to the Republican base.

The reason why he's a C tier though isn't just a too conservative for America thing (and Pence is super conservative), but also because Pence is just really unimpressive and has a poor record. He's the governor of Indiana, where he's pretty unpopular. If anybody remembers the Indiana religious freedom bill, that was him. And both sides of the spectrum didn't like how he handled it. He's up for reelection this year, and he could win but it's pretty up in the air so far. Pence also has this whole issue where, back when he first ran for Congress, he used campaign donations to pay for his mortgage and car and other personal needs (this was legal, but obviously frowned upon. In his defense he wasn't working at the time and this was his only source of income, but still ugly). He was in the House for 12 years, made it into a leadership position, and never passed a law that he introduced.

The big thing is that he's an unknown. This is pretty risk/reward because it allows the Trump campaign to define him (the upcoming convention is a nice opportunity for this), but it also let's Hillary take a whack at it. That's a pretty powerful thing. The prevailing theory behind Romney's loss is that Obama was able to negatively define the hell out of him in the early months. Of course, on the flip side, people generally vote for the top of the ticket, so there's really a limit to Pence's impact. Palin cost McCain votes, but she's an exception particularly because of how much attention she got. I don't see Pence being effective at stealing Trump's spotlight. The idea is for him to rile up values voters, assuage the base, and get some midwestern appeal voting (the midwest/rust belt is Trump's clearest road to victory). If Hillary can discredit him and make him unfavorable, then that's a good win for her.

None of this is meant as a critique of Trump's decision here. He was the least worst option; the other two contenders were Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie. Pence was the certainly the right call.

inb4 hillary wastes the faith and support she has from her party's elected officials and picks fucking julian castro

[Snorby]

The way I see things, Hillary was going to pick Julian Castro if Marco Rubio was on the ticket, Elizabeth Warren if she was having trouble getting Bernie's supporters behind her, and Tim Kaine otherwise.

So basically she's gonna pick Tim Kaine imo.

[Stealthy]

Originally Posted by Snorby

The way I see things, Hillary was going to pick Julian Castro if Marco Rubio was on the ticket.

I mean, countering Rubio is the entire point of Julian Castro's existence.

[Shuckle]

Pretty much what Stealthy said. Pence is just a white bread American who's supposed to represent You, as The Trump Voter. Someone who supports the greatness of America while also pushing Republican ideas and values. It's really appealing to strong Republicans who are afraid of the changes and "abandonment of moral principles" that Hillary's ticket seems to bring.

I REALLY would have liked to see diversity on the Trump ticket. Carson seemed the natural choice to my mother, and I agree that it could have been an interesting twist on the campaign. But I also think that it's some really strong ticket balancing - if my suspicions are correct, Trump will need a conservative anchor to hold on to Republican votes as he campaigns closer to the center.

He can't be seen as compromising his positions. With Pence on the team, for example, talking about how LGBT people are Americans too will be seen as less offensive to traditional moral values.

[Doppleganger]

I'm surprised Talon hasn't weighed in on the Pence pick (hint hint).

I don't know much about him either. Except for the humour of Trump's name having an association with opulence, and his VP pick is a literal pence.

I wonder if being cheap with his VP pick is a foreshadowing of tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Shuckle]

Trump's tax plan is actually really weird. The criticisms of it that I've seen have totally ignored a lot of the minor details of the plan that make it more or less feasible, so it's actually really hard to know exactly what it will do for the country. It's kind of weird. All these articles claim that "experts" reviewed these tax plans, but I see no mention of a bunch of really important variables that could significantly swing how much money actually enters the government.

It's mostly helpful to the poor by taking away the need to file taxes entirely - for anyone who's been poor, you'll know this is a huge godsend. Most American poor can't take the time to sit down and roll through a complicated and confusing tax system. As the poorest Americans pay the least in taxes as well, it's not even that big a deal. Unless you make $25,000 at least, you just send the IRS a letter saying "I win" and move on with your life.

Trump's plan does reduce the tax rate for the wealthy, but it also removes all the deductions that made the effective tax rate a lot lower than 25%. It also taxes offshore earnings, including money withdrawn from offshore accounts. One of the many confounding variables of economics is that the wealthy are really fucking good at avoiding taxes legally - reliability is often far more important than rate. The super-rich pay people millions of dollars to pore over their earnings and find ways to reduce their tax burden. Under the Trump system, those deductions and loopholes would end, which Trump claims will put more into Uncle Sam's pockets, overall.

Is 25% high/low enough and is $150k the right base amount? My hunch is that 25% IS high enough, especially since some areas have more expensive standards of living and other expenses exist - you can't just assume that someone making $200k has money to burn, even if they are single. I would like to see Millionaire and Billionaire tax brackets similar to what exists in Europe, though - perhaps 50% and 90%?

The risk with any kind of tax plan on the wealthy is the threat of legal evasion - finding loopholes to avoid the tax burden. That group is absolutely chock full of people who will hire other people to hunt for and abuse those loopholes. Trump insists that his flat 25% rate will prompt the rich to start contributing, but time will tell whether this is actually effective.

Also, he is reducing the corporate tax rate - again, for reliability reasons. This is still kind of a gamble as America may lose more than it gains from having such a low rate for corporate taxes - most corporations in the US are not global and would be paying a shockingly reduced rate compared to what they pay now.

tl;dr: Trump's plan tries to be explicitly unfriendly to the rich, but a critical look at the plan causes a lot of uncertainty about whether or not they pay MORE or LESS in taxes after a Trump plan. The numbers are just too low for a definitive answer.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It's mostly helpful to the poor by taking away the need to file taxes entirely - for anyone who's been poor, you'll know this is a huge godsend. Most American poor can't take the time to sit down and roll through a complicated and confusing tax system. As the poorest Americans pay the least in taxes as well, it's not even that big a deal. Unless you make $25,000 at least, you just send the IRS a letter saying "I win" and move on with your life.[/B]

This is just plain wrong. Based on the testimonies of coworkers, neighbors, friends, and even my thrifty self, I can think of at least two avenues the poor take to file their taxes:

1. automated accountants, e.g. TurboTax, that guide you through the process on a web browser
2. urban ministries and homeless shelters which invite the poor to sign up for a pro bono tax filing

The former is what I have used, as well as a number of family, friends, and coworkers. The latter is what several neighbors have used. I didn't even know the latter was a thing until this past year, but apparently it is: every year, the city of Lafayette's homeless shelters will invite anyone in the community (doesn't matter how well off you are) to sign up on a sign-up sheet to have an appointment made for them for a pro bono tax filing with an actual human accountant.

TurboTax was free at the federal level for me when filing for 2014 and was free at both the federal and the state level for me when filing for 2015. In both cases, I ended up paying $30 (for the 2014 season, the state filings; for the 2015 season, some bonuses that were worth the $30 to me), but even if you are dirt poor $30 is nothing compared with traditional avenues like H&R Block and other accounting firms who easily charge $100+.

tl;dr yes the tax system is confusing but no it isn't hard for the poor to navigate -- 'cause they have someone or something else navigate it for them, in many cases free of charge.

[Shuckle]

Uh. Let me try to restate your argument as I see it.

To counter the idea that a simplified tax system is better for the poor (as they don't have to spend time/money on or stress out over tax filings), you are claiming that in your nice, non-poor city, those who are less privileged are capable of taking advantage of multiple systems that cost time and occasionally money to use?

I'm not fully sure that a.) this is any better than just filing an "I win" letter and b.) that EVERY American who qualifies is capable of taking advantage of this opportunity AND c.) that every American who is capable of taking advantage of this opportunity is both aware of and willing to actually take advantage of it. All three of those points would have to be correct for your argument to be true. And...yeah, sorry, you're kind of fighting uphill here because those things are definitely not true.

[Snorby]

I've missed this so much for the past year and a half.

[Shuckle]

Some days I wish the DNC was just as ridiculous as the RNC but at least the RNC is a big enough clown fiesta that it doesn't matter.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Uh. Let me try to restate your argument as I see it.

To counter the idea that a simplified tax system is better for the poor (as they don't have to spend time/money on or stress out over tax filings), you are claiming that in your nice, non-poor city, those who are less privileged are capable of taking advantage of multiple systems that cost time and occasionally money to use?

I'm not fully sure that a.) this is any better than just filing an "I win" letter and b.) that EVERY American who qualifies is capable of taking advantage of this opportunity AND c.) that every American who is capable of taking advantage of this opportunity is both aware of and willing to actually take advantage of it. All three of those points would have to be correct for your argument to be true. And...yeah, sorry, you're kind of fighting uphill here because those things are definitely not true.

No, and please don't "try to restate my argument" again. You're clearly putting words into my mouth that I didn't say just to win an e-debate. What I was responding to was, and I will re-quote it because once apparently wasn't enough:

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It's mostly helpful to the poor by taking away the need to file taxes entirely - for anyone who's been poor, you'll know this is a huge godsend. Most American poor can't take the time to sit down and roll through a complicated and confusing tax system. As the poorest Americans pay the least in taxes as well, it's not even that big a deal. Unless you make $25,000 at least, you just send the IRS a letter saying "I win" and move on with your life.

Breaking this down:

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It's mostly helpful to the poor

No, it's not. Most of the convolution in the current tax system exists precisely because it is a series of hoops constructed to ensure that the poor (who manage to jump through every hoop as they check off every checkbox) get their money back during tax season while everyone else (who is ineligible to check off one or more checkboxes for returns) ends up owing the federal government at least something.

for anyone who's been poor, you'll know this is a huge godsend.

No, it really isn't. And this was where I focused my reply: explaining why you were wrong to assert that tax season is hellish for the poor. You make it sound like they suffer and that it's difficult for them, both mentally and financially, when in fact it is neither owing to the reasons I explained.

Most American poor can't take the time to sit down and roll through a complicated and confusing tax system.

Wrong.

As the poorest Americans pay the least in taxes as well, it's not even that big a deal.

Wrong -- in that it would be a huge deal to the American poor to lose the current tax system in favor of a simplified system.

Unless you make $25,000 at least, you just send the IRS a letter saying "I win" and move on with your life.

Which is what they already do. Fuck: you even include the still-having-to-file-taxes-with-the-IRS in the end, so you've simplified NOTHING for them in a meaningful sense. They still have to remember to file (or have it set up to automatically file for them). They still have to get their W-2's ready. You act as though the toughest part about filing your taxes is navigating all of the tax code when in fact an accountant ($$$) or an automated tax filer like TurboTax (free to very little $) does it for you.

[Shuckle]

You said the restated argument was wrong, then proceeded to restate my restated argument while supporting my counterargument. I'm sorry that it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth but I literally just summarized what you said.

No, it's not. Most of the convolution in the current tax system exists precisely because it is a series of hoops constructed to ensure that the poor (who manage to jump through every hoop as they check off every checkbox) get their money back during tax season while everyone else (who is ineligible to check off one or more checkboxes for returns) ends up owing the federal government at least something.

that it's difficult for them, both mentally and financially, when in fact it is neither owing to the reasons I explained.

1. automated accountants, e.g. TurboTax, that guide you through the process on a web browser
2. urban ministries and homeless shelters which invite the poor to sign up for a pro bono tax filing

You said I was wrong but I can't figure out exactly what I said that was wrong. It seems very clear to me - you're saying that tax season isn't difficult for the poor because they have people helping them navigate the (difficult) tax system. Which seems strange and inefficient to me. Wouldn't a simplified tax system be better?

Not to mention that not everyone is even going to seek help. You mentioned yourself:

I didn't even know the latter was a thing until this past year, but apparently it is:

Honestly, I should have gone with my original plan and told you that this came from Clinton. I wonder how you would have reacted.

[Doppleganger]

Shuckle, have you ever been like poverty poor, to the point you can cite yourself as an example to counter Talon's? Otherwise,

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It's mostly helpful to the poor by taking away the need to file taxes entirely - for anyone who's been poor, you'll know this is a huge godsend.

Which is basically your whole premise, is a misguided assumption.

[Shuckle]

When growing up, I had a friend named Frankie. Unfortunately he passed a few years ago due to a genetic condition that also took his oldest sister - which is how we knew them, as my mother found out about the tragedy through the usual channels and took to comforting the family.

Frankie's family lived in absolute poverty in an area where nobody had any business being poor. His father went back to Africa like a scumbag, leaving the wife and kids behind, and they were just barely able to afford a house in the poorest part of my rich area thanks to the money left over by the runaway dad. As my mother will tell you, they had nothing.

I was only a kid at the time so I didn't understand. I thought they were the coolest thing on the planet - a huge (empty) backyard to run around in, a cherry tree to climb and eat off of, and toys from mail-in rebates off of cheap cereal boxes? That's heaven to a child.

My mother helped this woman build a resume, secure a job, pay taxes, grieve, care for her kids, save for the future, and move to a cheaper and nicer location. And honestly, that's one of the things that sticks with me. She not only didn't know how to do these things, she literally couldn't take the time and effort to learn or to find a way to do it without help.

Poverty fucks with your brain. You can't think about the future in the same way you can if you make enough to live. Your entire life revolves around making it from one day to the next. Studies back me up here; even those who WERE rich and became unexpectedly poor still show this pattern of behavior of short-term thinking and long-term mistakes. It's not that poor people can't think about saving, it's that they can't afford to.

Your mistake (and the mistake of pretty much the entire Republican Party, just throwing that out there) is projecting your own lines of thinking on others. Because you know the easy and logical solution to the problem (seek free aid through traditional channels), you assume that anyone with the problem is capable of solving it that way. Not true!

It makes sense to me that poor people would find it difficult to navigate the tax system and would heavily benefit from a simplified process.

Talon's rebuttal to my argument was that "there are services in place to help them," which I countered with "I doubt that those services are offered everywhere, and even if they are, I doubt everyone in need will take advantage of them."

If you would like to rebut my original argument by claiming that the process of filing taxes is absolutely trivial for people who make below $50000/yr, feel free. All you really have to prove is that it is easy for someone who lives below the poverty line to take time out of their day to complete and mail a form they don't understand without any kind of assistance, OR that said assistance is universally and equally available to everyone of every racial group and geographic region. I think that covers everything.

Hint: Talon mentioned already that people at the income level we're discussing effectively should be paying no taxes, yet in 2014, the lowest 20% paid about 3.3% of the nation's tax burden while holding 2.1% of the wealth. So it looks suspiciously like...perhaps the poor might struggle with the system of refunds and deductibles that disproportionately favors the rich? With America's shockingly-not-that-progressive tax rate? And you're FIGHTING me on this one?

I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong. On this one, I'm fairly confident I'm not wrong.