If the total yearly income of all people making more than $20 million adds up to $42 billion across the group, then adding a higher tax bracket of 70% for that group instead of the current cap of 37% would generate $15 billion in new revenue. $15 billion every single year is a lot of money in absolute terms. You can say it's a drop in the bucket, but the national budget is a pretty freaking big bucket. Currently, the government is being shut down over a dispute about only $5 billion.
And yes, that's just one aspect of a more progressive tax plan; raising taxes among the rest of the 1% and 10% would generate even more while impoverishing nobody (the top 1% of the population is not going to suddenly end up poor).
Ideally, we'd also implement a progressive capital gains tax, since a lot of the wealthiest folks make their money by collecting interest off of stock portfolios rather than earning a salary.
Personally, I'd make the corporate tax rate progressive as well. Currently, we've got a flat tax rate for corporations, which imposes a heavy burden on small businesses while generating very little revenue from larger corporations. If we accept the premise that higher-income folks should pay a higher percentage of their income--even if we don't agree that it should scale up to [name a percent] for people earning [name a salary]--then I see no reason we wouldn't apply the same logic to businesses as we do for individuals.
My numbers were based on 100% taxation (or basically, confiscation). The bracket that JJ mentioned was 70% of income over $10 M so that would be considerably less in the coffers than the $42 B. I couldn't find numbers for the people between $10-20 M so they aren't included. There's probably a magic number somewhere where the tax isn't so harsh as to encourage cheating, moving out, sitting on wealth, or discouraging investment but 70% seems a bit much.
Also, keep in mind Europe is no panacea. There is plenty of 'old money' there that isn't touched by their taxation systems.
My numbers were based on 100% taxation (or basically, confiscation). The bracket that JJ mentioned was 70% of income over $10 M so that would be considerably less in the coffers than the $42 B. I couldn't find numbers for the people between $10-20 M so they aren't included. There's probably a magic number somewhere where the tax isn't so harsh as to encourage cheating, moving out, sitting on wealth, or discouraging investment but 70% seems a bit much.
Also, keep in mind Europe is no panacea. There is plenty of 'old money' there that isn't touched by their taxation systems.
For what it's worth - the "It's only a drop in the bucket" argument doesnt seem like a good reason to do something, or not to do something.
In this case - the amount of money these people are making is ludicrous. The amount of money they'd *still* be making is ludicrous (only would be slightly less ludicrous).
That money would be used to benefit all people.
As others have pointed out - with progressive tax brackets not only targeting the top .01%, it's also not really a "drop in the bucket" anymore.
I do tend to agree simply reshaping the tax system will not fix everything. Particularly because one side (Conservatives) have such a vested interest in keeping rich people rich, that I suspect you'd see every single conservative administration trying to undo the effects of a tax change.
Unfortunately - as with just about all things we say in this thread: Have to get rid of money in politics, first...
Brexit discussions are hotting up again ahead of the vote expected in Parliament next week on May's proposed Brexit deal. That represents something of a compromise position between the Remain and Leave positions and there's still no sign that MPs are going to unite around a compromise.
In fact the pressures seem to be the other way with positions continuing to harden. Boris Johnson has spoken up in support of leaving the EU without a deal, claiming that best represents what people voted for. Personally I think that's a tactical error on his part as making that argument will substantially increase the likelihood of a further referendum (which MPs supporting Leave are generally strongly against). The reasoning for that goes as follows: - the basis on which people voted is not known, but clearly people made assumptions about what they expected to happen. - quite a few MPs have said publicly that they support the idea of leaving the EU in principle, but that they would prefer to remain rather than leave on the basis of no deal (the 209 MPs signing the letter asking May to rule out a no-deal Brexit referred to in the article I linked include both Leave and Remain supporters). - given that position is not uncommon for MPs, to suggest that it is/was not also held by many voters does not seem to me to be a credible argument. - therefore suggesting that the previous referendum supported the idea of a no-deal Brexit seems no more democratic to me than MPs ignoring the result of the referendum and voting to remain anyway. - there's no realistic possibility of MPs voting directly to remain, but it is possible that continuing to push the idea of no-deal will result in a majority voting for another referendum as the only acceptable option to break a Parliamentary deadlock.
Current opinion polls suggest there's now a small majority in favor of Remain. While such polls need to be treated with caution, I do find it surprising that so many MPs supporting Leave are prepared to ignore them. By gambling for a hard line Brexit they are continuing to increase the chances of not getting a Brexit at all.
I've previously praised the willingness of the U.K. government to leave the EU on the grounds that it demonstrated immense respect for public opinion even when it contradicted the existing government's priorities (it was a nonbinding vote, but the government still respected it), but the extremely lengthy and uncertain process of actually leaving the EU, in my opinion, is more than sufficient to justify a second referendum, with more specific terms.
We barely even know what Brexit is going to look like in the end, which gives us little reason to believe that we're going to get the result that people actually wanted when they voted in the previous referendum.
U.S. federal judge tosses out conservative Christian lawsuit against ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/u-s-federal-judge-tosses-conservative-christian-lawsuit-drag-queen-story-hour/?fbclid=IwAR1D7a6TH7-TtkmEKrb2udpEmAsOwRPUBdgFvR2LYekJQQ9jM6EgGcYTdKI Christopher Sevier — a man once described as “notorious legal troll with a troubling history of bigotry, violence, and stalking” — has had his lawsuit against “Drag Queen Story Hour” (DQSH) tossed out of court by a U.S. district judge. Sevier and other conservative Christian activists were trying to sue Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Public Library Executive Director Rhea Lawson for promoting DQSH with taxpayer money. DQSH is a non-profit where local drag queen volunteers read books to kids. The anti-LGBTQ plaintiffs claimed that DQSH promotes a religion called “secular humanism,” and that, by using tax dollars to create fliers for the program, the city of Houston violated the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment forbidding the establishment of a government religion. In the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, Sevier and his cohorts wrote, “LGBTQ ideology is immoral, obscene and subversive to human flourishing.” They also claimed the Houston library was “brainwashing the children of Houston.” If Drag Queens want to read stories to kids, I applaud them. As we’ve mentioned before, Sevier once tried to sue Apple computers for not filtering out porn on their laptops. He also tried to sue President Obama after A&E canceled the reality show Duck Dynasty.
Gavin McInnes Writes Letters to Neighbors to Take Down Anti-Hate Signs
Mike Pence had to swear in America’s first bi senator… & she didn’t use a Bible
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/mike-pence-swear-americas-first-bi-senator-didnt-use-bible/?fbclid=IwAR0RKdlRAzf8OVUkeiPwp8zqx7LPicCj7H5TBO4EeCeBUKHecA0JmMywZM8 Mike Pence, who is known for his extreme Christian conservatism, had to swear in America’s first bisexual U.S. Senator… with a copy of a law book. Not only was it ironic that someone whose anti-LGBTQ views once even included support for federal funding for conversion therapy had to swear in the country’s first bi U.S. Senator, but Sinema was one of the few members of Congress sworn in on something other than a religious book. Instead, she was sworn in on a book that contained both the U.S. and the Arizona constitutions. “Kyrsten always gets sworn in on a Constitution simply because of her love for the Constitution,” said a spokesperson for the senator.
Religious Group Resists Secular Education for Its Children
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/31/1822602/-Religious-Group-Resists-Secular-Education-for-Its-Children?detail=emaildkre Should a religious group be permitted to deny a secular education to the children of its members in the name of religious freedom? A battle over the right of children to learn, to think, and to be prepared for life in the modern world is now being fought out in the East Ramapo community in New York State. Articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declare education a fundamental human right that should include “preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society.” While the United States played an active role in drafting the Convention and it was signed during the Clinton administration, it has never been ratified, partly because of opposition by rightwing groups. The battle in New York over the right of children whose parents are members of a religious sect to a modern education started in 2015 when “graduates” of ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious academies in Brooklyn, New York charged that in violation of state education guidelines that mandate private religious schools provide their students with a “substantially equivalent” education, they had never received appropriate instruction in English, math, science, or history. Almost 60,000 children attend Jewish religious schools in New York City. There are over 250 Orthodox Jewish yeshivas in New York State.
CA Recycling Company Says They’re Drowning in Plastic, Calls for Referendum on Single Use Ban
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/3/1823227/-Mitch-McConnell-i-sthe-key-right-Right?detail=emaildkre OK, look, I know that I’m not the sharpest scalpel on the surgical tray, but even I can see a pattern emerging when it’s a 20’x20’ checkerboard. In several recent articles, I have talked about the changeover in the House control putting upward pressure on McConnell, as well as Trump. I have received a myriad of well thought out comments, explaining that McConnell doesn’t care about external pressure, in fact, he has been totally resistant to it for the last two years. And fundamentally, I agree with these comments. But my basic point is a little more nuanced than that. Up until now, Mitch McConnell has been riding his golden chariot across the sky, like some ancient Roman god. He has been able to do this for one simple reason. McConnell has been able to do this for one simple reason, because he can create and effect lasting change without having to get the approval of either of the other two branches, the White House, or the House. That is what has made him as effective as he has been, and given him his power, especially where Trump is concerned. McConnell has had a get-out-of-jail-free card for the last two years. Ryan’s chattering monkeys in the House could pass any idiocy that they wanted, but McConnell could quash it with impunity, by laying the blame on the Democrats for filibustering said nonsense. This not only let Trump blame the Democrats for obstructionism, it also allowed McConnell to avoid forcing his GOP Senators to vote “no” on some amazingly stupid shit. Talk about the original win-win scenario.
Charisma: Ignore at our peril
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/3/1823292/-Charisma-Ignore-at-our-peril?detail=emaildkre If we were to try to isolate one factor that makes a difference in Democrats’ chances of taking the White House, what would it be? Experience? Voting record? Toughness? Geography? More than 50 years of history indicate the answer is charisma, a hard to define but know-it-when-we-see-it quality. Here’s a pithy definition: “a special magnetic charm or appeal.” Look at the modern history of Presidential elections since 1960 when TV became a major force in politics. When Dems have a charismatic candidate they always win and when they have a charisma-challenged candidate they lose — barring unusual circumstances. I’ll admit it, my decisions about who has it and who doesn’t are subjective although I try to think of it more as the typical voter’s view instead of just mine. For example, Ronald Reagan’s supposed charisma didn’t work for me because of his politics but I can’t deny that for most voters he had it in spades.
Melissa Joan Hart told her 6-year-old son that only people who believe in Jesus are 'good' — and people are calling her out for 'casual anti-Semitism'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/?fbclid=IwAR1fV-LWoyQDR2LYlfawTxOgNgb0KzfOauMlWaooEdpHf_n1Ged5AniUg-M#502cf4314415 Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration. In 2014, Trump’s plan to run for president moved into high gear. His political confidant was consultant Roger Stone. “Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”
Trump supporter blasted by CNN host for repeating ‘ridiculous talking points’ about president’s wall
‘Betrayed’: Trump-voting Michigan business owner threatens factory move to Mexico
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/betrayed-trump-voting-michigan-business-owner-threatens-factory-move-mexico/?fbclid=IwAR3bAYqrMl2Z9W1Sx3L7YIZ7Ybn5x1hLbJE7-vywyZsDKL2TCXGoPcwdEV4 A Michigan businessman who freely admits he voted for Donald Trump is considering moving his factory production south of the border because of the devastating impact that the president’s tariffs have had on his business. According to a report in the New York Times, Pat LeBlanc, chairman of EBW Electronics based in Michigan, complained that the tariffs that resulted from the president’s trade wars will cut his profits in half and that he may have to move production to Mexico. “It’s killing us,” the Republican LeBlanc admitted. “I just feel so betrayed. If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.” The reports states that raw materials have undergone drastic price increases due to the tariffs, meaning consumers will have to pay more or manufacturers will have to cut costs. “It’s a tax that comes right off the bottom line,” said EBW’s president, Cory Steeby. “It totally incentivizes you to move out of the United States and build either in Canada or Mexico. These are active conversations right now.”
Trump supporter eyes moving factory to Mexico over tariffs
We Already Have a Border Wall. It’s an Environmental Disaster.
https://truthout.org/articles/we-already-have-a-border-wall-its-an-environmental-disaster/ Walls in general cause structural and geological issues, including flood, erosion, and sedimentation, and the poorly-designed, ill-conceived border infrastructure has indeed malfunctioned in serious ways. For instance, in July 2008, a 5.2-mile section of border fence along southern Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument helped cause a devastating flood. During a storm that dumped 1-2 inches of rain in 90 minutes, the 15-foot-tall wire mesh fence became a towering net for piled-up debris. The built-in drains in the fence were blocked, preventing water from escaping. And the fence’s foundation, buried six feet below the ground, prevented subsurface draining. The result was surging water up to 7 feet high that funneled directly through the town of Lukeville, Arizona and the neighboring Mexican town of Sonoyta. The floodwaters caused severe damage to buildings, infrastructure, and natural resources. Two hundred miles east during the same storm, a 5-foot-high concrete wall built across a storm drain by the US Border Patrol caused severe flooding in sister city Nogales, Sonora. This resulted in $8 million in damage, including damage to 578 homes, and the drownings of two people. Mexican officials declared the flood area a disaster zone. In response to the flooding, Robin Silver, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Arizona Daily Star, “What we are seeing graphically at Organ Pipe was predictable. … When you build an impediment across a stream, it becomes a dam. And providing some holes in a fence is a joke.” Not only are such walls structurally and logistically unsound, but some designs would violate a 48-year-old treaty between the US and Mexico regarding the construction of border structures that may affect the flow of the Rio Grande or its floodwaters. The 1970 treaty mandates pre-building approval of both the US and Mexican members of the International Boundary and Water Commission. In 2017, as Trump increased his rhetoric around building a wall, the IBWC’s chief Mexican engineer, Antonio Rascón, told NPR that he would block any proposal that violated the binational treaty. “A concrete wall that blocks trans-border water movement is a total obstruction. If they plan that type of project, we will oppose it,” he said.
DEMOCRATS BEGIN PUSHING BILL THAT DEMANDS TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, NEW ETHICS AND NEPOTISM RULES
@FinneousPJ No, that was the point of the article. Someone sexually assulted her while she was in a vegetative state, and they didn't realize she was pregnant until she was giving birth.
@FinneousPJ No, that was the point of the article. Someone sexually assulted her while she was in a vegetative state, and they didn't realize she was pregnant until she was giving birth.
Sounds like a situation where a DNA test of all current and former male employees is totally justified. Certainly the healthcare facility should already be doing so to everyone still currently working there.
The Democrats in the House, aside from trying to reopen the government by passing the EXACT bill the Senate voted on 100-0 before Trump had his tantrum, have also introduced and will almost certainly pass HR1, which is frankly one of the best pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It would do these things:
1.) Nationwide automatic voter registration: As I have said before, voting is a right of citizens of this country, not a privilege. There is no reason you should have to jump through hoops to do so.
2.) Same-day registration: Again, what is the argument against this?? Why is there an arbitrary timeline you are put on that decides if you are allowed to vote or not??
3.) Two weeks of early voting in every state: People have children, jobs, and other obligations that sometimes make voting on election day an impossibility. Again, there is no legitimate argument against early voting.
4.) Funding for States to adopt paper ballots: We have seen the Russians hack into the voter rolls, even if they haven't changed votes. We know for certain in Texas votes were flipping on electronic machines based on the testimonials of those who said it happened to them. We can no longer trust technology to do this for us. The only argument against paper ballots is impatience in getting the results.
5.) Restoration of the voting rights of ex-felons nationwide: Again, how can we expect ex-felons to reintegrate into society in a positive way if we don't even allow them to participate in what is arguably the most meaningful part of it??
6.) Declaring Election Day a Nation Holiday: That we hold this on a Tuesday is a relic of the 18th century. That Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day is not is absurd. This should have happened YEARS ago. It is arguably more important than any other day on the calendar.
7.) Congress can set uniform voting procedures for Federal elections: How can we have fair elections for nationwide seats when we have 50 separate sets of rules for who, how, and where people can vote??
8.) End partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions instead of state legislatures to draw congressional maps: What is the counter argument to this, that whoever is in charge should be able to draw their own field of battle??
9.)Require dark money groups to disclose their donors: Everyone says they want to help get money out of politics, this is one concrete step to doing so.
10.) Require by law Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates reveal ten years of their tax returns: We now have concrete proof of what happens when someone doesn't. The entire White House is turned over to a crime family. Again, what is the argument, that the public shouldn't know what is in the financial closet of the people asking to be given the most powerful position in the world??
Again, this will easily pass the House. Mitch McConnell has said it is going nowhere in the Senate. Of course it isn't. Because almost everything in this bill would curtail the artificial advantage the Republican Party has built for themselves over the last 30 years. Almost everything in this bill is simply there to make it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote. A refusal to even consider it, much less vote for it, tells us exactly what we already know from all available recent evidence about the Republican Party. They don't believe certain people should vote, and they don't really believe in the concept of democracy at all, even in our Constitutional Republic version of it. Rejecting all these completely common sense approaches shows nothing by utter contempt for the idea that people should be able to exercise this right.
The Democrats in the House, aside from trying to reopen the government by passing the EXACT bill the Senate voted on 100-0 before Trump had his tantrum, have also introduced and will almost certainly pass HR1, which is frankly one of the best pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It would do these things:
1.) Nationwide automatic voter registration: As I have said before, voting is a right of citizens of this country, not a privilege. There is no reason you should have to jump through hoops to do so.
2.) Same-day registration: Again, what is the argument against this?? Why is there an arbitrary timeline you are put on that decides if you are allowed to vote or not??
3.) Two weeks of early voting in every state: People have children, jobs, and other obligations that sometimes make voting on election day an impossibility. Again, there is no legitimate argument against early voting.
4.) Funding for States to adopt paper ballots: We have seen the Russians hack into the voter rolls, even if they haven't changed votes. We know for certain in Texas votes were flipping on electronic machines based on the testimonials of those who said it happened to them. We can no longer trust technology to do this for us. The only argument against paper ballots is impatience in getting the results.
5.) Restoration of the voting rights of ex-felons nationwide: Again, how can we expect ex-felons to reintegrate into society in a positive way if we don't even allow them to participate in what is arguably the most meaningful part of it??
6.) Declaring Election Day a Nation Holiday: That we hold this on a Tuesday is a relic of the 18th century. That Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day is not is absurd. This should have happened YEARS ago. It is arguably more important than any other day on the calendar.
7.) Congress can set uniform voting procedures for Federal elections: How can we have fair elections for nationwide seats when we have 50 separate sets of rules for who, how, and where people can vote??
8.) End partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions instead of state legislatures to draw congressional maps.: What is the counter argument to this, that whoever is in charge should be able to draw their own field of battle??
9.)Require dark money groups to disclose their donors: Everyone says they want to help get money out of politics, this is one concrete step to doing so.
10.) Require by law Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates reveal ten years of their tax returns: We now have concrete proof of what happens when someone doesn't. The entire White House is turned over to a crime family. Again, what is the argument, that the public shouldn't know what is in the financial closet of the people asking to be given the most powerful position in the world??
Again, this will easily pass the House. Mitch McConnell has said it is going nowhere in the Senate. Of course it isn't. Because almost everything in this bill would curtail the artificial advantage the Republican Party has built for themselves over the last 30 years. Almost everything in this bill is simply there to make it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote. A refusal to even consider it, much less vote for it, tells us exactly what we already know from all available recent evidence about the Republican Party. They don't believe certain people should vote, and they don't really believe in the concept of democracy at all, even in our Constitutional Republic version of it. Rejecting all these completely common sense approaches shows nothing by utter contempt for the idea that people should be able to exercise this right.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
The Democrats in the House, aside from trying to reopen the government by passing the EXACT bill the Senate voted on 100-0 before Trump had his tantrum, have also introduced and will almost certainly pass HR1, which is frankly one of the best pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It would do these things:
1.) Nationwide automatic voter registration: As I have said before, voting is a right of citizens of this country, not a privilege. There is no reason you should have to jump through hoops to do so.
2.) Same-day registration: Again, what is the argument against this?? Why is there an arbitrary timeline you are put on that decides if you are allowed to vote or not??
3.) Two weeks of early voting in every state: People have children, jobs, and other obligations that sometimes make voting on election day an impossibility. Again, there is no legitimate argument against early voting.
4.) Funding for States to adopt paper ballots: We have seen the Russians hack into the voter rolls, even if they haven't changed votes. We know for certain in Texas votes were flipping on electronic machines based on the testimonials of those who said it happened to them. We can no longer trust technology to do this for us. The only argument against paper ballots is impatience in getting the results.
5.) Restoration of the voting rights of ex-felons nationwide: Again, how can we expect ex-felons to reintegrate into society in a positive way if we don't even allow them to participate in what is arguably the most meaningful part of it??
6.) Declaring Election Day a Nation Holiday: That we hold this on a Tuesday is a relic of the 18th century. That Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day is not is absurd. This should have happened YEARS ago. It is arguably more important than any other day on the calendar.
7.) Congress can set uniform voting procedures for Federal elections: How can we have fair elections for nationwide seats when we have 50 separate sets of rules for who, how, and where people can vote??
8.) End partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions instead of state legislatures to draw congressional maps.: What is the counter argument to this, that whoever is in charge should be able to draw their own field of battle??
9.)Require dark money groups to disclose their donors: Everyone says they want to help get money out of politics, this is one concrete step to doing so.
10.) Require by law Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates reveal ten years of their tax returns: We now have concrete proof of what happens when someone doesn't. The entire White House is turned over to a crime family. Again, what is the argument, that the public shouldn't know what is in the financial closet of the people asking to be given the most powerful position in the world??
Again, this will easily pass the House. Mitch McConnell has said it is going nowhere in the Senate. Of course it isn't. Because almost everything in this bill would curtail the artificial advantage the Republican Party has built for themselves over the last 30 years. Almost everything in this bill is simply there to make it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote. A refusal to even consider it, much less vote for it, tells us exactly what we already know from all available recent evidence about the Republican Party. They don't believe certain people should vote, and they don't really believe in the concept of democracy at all, even in our Constitutional Republic version of it. Rejecting all these completely common sense approaches shows nothing by utter contempt for the idea that people should be able to exercise this right.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
What is the objection to any of it?? The bulk of the current policies it attempts to address are nothing but the descendants of poll taxes, literacy tests, and land requirements. Furthermore, since EVERYONE would benefit from easier voting, it is impossible to make the claim this tilts the field toward Democrats without admitting the current state of affairs is titled against them. One cannot be true if the other isn't.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
Respectfully, I'd say the hundreds of "repeal ACA" bills the GOP house passed under the Obama administration was grandstanding at its stupidest. At least this bill hits on the fact that our election system is hideously broken and proposes to fix it.
The Democrats in the House, aside from trying to reopen the government by passing the EXACT bill the Senate voted on 100-0 before Trump had his tantrum, have also introduced and will almost certainly pass HR1, which is frankly one of the best pieces of legislation I have ever seen. It would do these things:
1.) Nationwide automatic voter registration: As I have said before, voting is a right of citizens of this country, not a privilege. There is no reason you should have to jump through hoops to do so.
2.) Same-day registration: Again, what is the argument against this?? Why is there an arbitrary timeline you are put on that decides if you are allowed to vote or not??
3.) Two weeks of early voting in every state: People have children, jobs, and other obligations that sometimes make voting on election day an impossibility. Again, there is no legitimate argument against early voting.
4.) Funding for States to adopt paper ballots: We have seen the Russians hack into the voter rolls, even if they haven't changed votes. We know for certain in Texas votes were flipping on electronic machines based on the testimonials of those who said it happened to them. We can no longer trust technology to do this for us. The only argument against paper ballots is impatience in getting the results.
5.) Restoration of the voting rights of ex-felons nationwide: Again, how can we expect ex-felons to reintegrate into society in a positive way if we don't even allow them to participate in what is arguably the most meaningful part of it??
6.) Declaring Election Day a Nation Holiday: That we hold this on a Tuesday is a relic of the 18th century. That Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day is not is absurd. This should have happened YEARS ago. It is arguably more important than any other day on the calendar.
7.) Congress can set uniform voting procedures for Federal elections: How can we have fair elections for nationwide seats when we have 50 separate sets of rules for who, how, and where people can vote??
8.) End partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions instead of state legislatures to draw congressional maps.: What is the counter argument to this, that whoever is in charge should be able to draw their own field of battle??
9.)Require dark money groups to disclose their donors: Everyone says they want to help get money out of politics, this is one concrete step to doing so.
10.) Require by law Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates reveal ten years of their tax returns: We now have concrete proof of what happens when someone doesn't. The entire White House is turned over to a crime family. Again, what is the argument, that the public shouldn't know what is in the financial closet of the people asking to be given the most powerful position in the world??
Again, this will easily pass the House. Mitch McConnell has said it is going nowhere in the Senate. Of course it isn't. Because almost everything in this bill would curtail the artificial advantage the Republican Party has built for themselves over the last 30 years. Almost everything in this bill is simply there to make it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote. A refusal to even consider it, much less vote for it, tells us exactly what we already know from all available recent evidence about the Republican Party. They don't believe certain people should vote, and they don't really believe in the concept of democracy at all, even in our Constitutional Republic version of it. Rejecting all these completely common sense approaches shows nothing by utter contempt for the idea that people should be able to exercise this right.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
What is the objection to any of it?? The bulk of the current policies it attempts to address are nothing but the descendants of poll taxes, literacy tests, and land requirements. Furthermore, since EVERYONE would benefit from easier voting, it is impossible to make the claim this tilts the field toward Democrats without admitting the current state of affairs is titled against them. One cannot be true if the other isn't.
I'm calling bullshit because the more you try to pack into one bill, the less chance it ever has to see the light of day. The Democrats know this so it's just a show to make it look like they're doing something. Hell, they might as well throw in tax the rich, Medicare for everybody, and free college just to round things out.
Oh my, the bad Republicans want to kill grandma, throw all the black people in prison, steal money from the poor so they starve and give it to the rich, oh and kill our kids by not making gun ownership illegal.
@Balrog99 "Oh my, the bad Republicans want to kill grandma, throw all the black people in prison, steal money from the poor so they starve and give it to the rich, oh and kill our kids by not making gun ownership illegal."
You are joking, but at least two of those things are demonstrably happening.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
Respectfully, I'd say the hundreds of "repeal ACA" bills the GOP house passed under the Obama administration was grandstanding at its stupidest. At least this bill hits on the fact that our election system is hideously broken and proposes to fix it.
I agree, that was equally stupid and a waste of time. This Bill is the same. A reality-TV bite thrown out there for nothing but scoring political points. Meanwhile nothing changes...
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
Respectfully, I'd say the hundreds of "repeal ACA" bills the GOP house passed under the Obama administration was grandstanding at its stupidest. At least this bill hits on the fact that our election system is hideously broken and proposes to fix it.
I agree, that was equally stupid and a waste of time. This Bill is the same. A reality-TV bite thrown out there for nothing but scoring political points. Meanwhile nothing changes...
@Balrog99 I don't understand your attitude on this. It's not a bill looking to address all Democrat priorities, but just related to elections. If you dislike specific proposals then let's debate those, but I don't see the problem in principle in having a number of different proposals in a single bill. Would you object to a Crime bill on the grounds that covered theft as well as murder, or an Education bill on the grounds it covered pre-school as well as college?
If it were really the case that this bill stands no chance of becoming law at the moment, but that individual proposals within it could do so if taken forward separately, I would have more sympathy with your position. However, I suspect that is not the case ...
@Balrog99 has a point. Repbulican’s wouldn’t back a law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax records as long as Trump is a candidate. Having that in there kills the rest of the bill.
And the moral arguement against it would be an invasion of privacy that can be sold to the general public, or a “This is just an attack on Trunp.”
6 may also be a killer. Statutory holidays cost businesses money due to a loss of production or having to pay employees overtime.
If your forcing businesses to close, some would rather pay a fine and operate, knowing that there is less competition during that day so the trade off would be worth it.
Something better might be the state having to pay for your time. If you have to stand in a line for 6 hours to vote, you get a nice cheque from the government (or deptartment in charge of running the election) for those 6 hours. Let’s see if that’ll improve the voting efficiency of polling stations.
9 may also be a killer for the same privacy reasons. It’d also probably be too easy to circumvent with shell companies anyway that by the time someone digs out all the information, the election is over.
Breaking up the bill may allow at least some of the points to pass instead of carrying all your eggs in one basket. As it stands this bill wouldn’t be going anywhere and the Democrats know it.
If Democrats are trying to pass a good law and Republicans are going to oppose it for partisan reasons, I think the fault lies on the Republican side.
You can call it "grandstanding," but if the GOP is opposing good policies, I think it's worth demonstrating that in the eyes of the public. This way, voters know which politicians support which policies.
If Democrats are trying to pass a good law and Republicans are going to oppose it for partisan reasons, I think the fault lies on the Republican side.
You can call it "grandstanding," but if the GOP is opposing good policies, I think it's worth demonstrating that in the eyes of the public. This way, voters know which politicians support which policies.
But time and time again (especially in US politics) different politicans oppose different bills for different reasons, and it is easy for the other side to say “this person doesn’t support this because they voted against this bill.”
You just have to look at Trump refusing to get money for his border wall because he didn’t support the Dreamers part of the bill. He had the money and refused it, but he refused it because he thought the dreamer part of the bill was bad legislation, which is subjective.
The statutory holiday, IMO, is the one thing that can kill this bill as their is an economic cost attached to it. I wouldn’t be surprised if a politican voted against it because of this, but in the next election their opponent would say “Congressman X voted to keep Dark Money in politics how can you trust him”
Expect 8 to be challenged up to the Supreme Court as well and if the right leaning judges say it is unconstitutional for the Federal government dictate to states how to elections are run (which has already happened), there goes the entire bill and not just that small section.
Break them up, pass each part one by one to allow at least some of it see the light of day. Why have it go in as all or nothing?
In other news, Democratic agents apparently staged a fake Republican effort to ban alcohol in Alabama in an attempt to hurt Roy Moore's chances during the election. The method involved creating phony Facebook pages supposedly by conservatives supporting a prohibition policy. This is the second example of this behavior, both of which were apparently funded by a group called "Invest In Us." We do not know the original funders of this group.
Matt Osborne, a veteran progressive activist who worked on the project, said he hoped that such deceptive tactics would someday be banned from American politics. But in the meantime, he said, he believes that Republicans are using such trickery and that Democrats cannot unilaterally give it up.
I've said before that when you're resorting to deception to win an argument, you're admitting that you can't win it through honest means. Trying to trick people because "the other side is doing it" is blatant hypocrisy.
Apparently this was a small-scale operation, but I don't think "It probably didn't affect the outcome of the election" is a valid defense. This sort of thing should indeed be illegal.
Breaking up the bill may allow at least some of the points to pass instead of carrying all your eggs in one basket. As it stands this bill wouldn’t be going anywhere and the Democrats know it.
If Trump and the Republicans made the offer to support half the bill I imagine the Democrats would be delighted to amend it to include just that half. As that's not even a remote possibility though, I agree with @semiticgod that it's a perfectly reasonable strategy to make public a coherent set of policies, rather than pursuing those few minor proposals where it might be possible to trade for Republican priorities.
The current government shutdown is a good illustration of the likely difficulties if the Democrats did pursue a bipartisan agenda. A funding bill unanimously agreed not long ago by the Senate can't even be put to the vote there now as a result of shifting goalposts. While I'm a great believer in compromise, I also think you need to be able to trust people you're doing deals with. In a situation where you can't trust the President to follow through on any agreements, compromises are bound to be far more difficult to arrive at.
It wasn't just agreed upon, it passed UNANIMOUSLY. Every single Republican Senator now demanding wall funding voted for a budget without it less than a month ago. 100% of them.
This is just more of the same bullshit politics. Why is all of this in one bill? Grandstanding at its stupidest...
Respectfully, I'd say the hundreds of "repeal ACA" bills the GOP house passed under the Obama administration was grandstanding at its stupidest. At least this bill hits on the fact that our election system is hideously broken and proposes to fix it.
I agree, that was equally stupid and a waste of time. This Bill is the same. A reality-TV bite thrown out there for nothing but scoring political points. Meanwhile nothing changes...
@Balrog99 I don't understand your attitude on this. It's not a bill looking to address all Democrat priorities, but just related to elections. If you dislike specific proposals then let's debate those, but I don't see the problem in principle in having a number of different proposals in a single bill. Would you object to a Crime bill on the grounds that covered theft as well as murder, or an Education bill on the grounds it covered pre-school as well as college?
If it were really the case that this bill stands no chance of becoming law at the moment, but that individual proposals within it could do so if taken forward separately, I would have more sympathy with your position. However, I suspect that is not the case ...
It has '0' chance of passing and the people putting it forward know it. That's my main point. They can keep putting it out there every few months for grins just like the evil Republicans did with defunding Obamacare. It's the gift to their base that just keeps giving!
In other news, Democratic agents apparently staged a fake Republican effort to ban alcohol in Alabama in an attempt to hurt Roy Moore's chances during the election. The method involved creating phony Facebook pages supposedly by conservatives supporting a prohibition policy. This is the second example of this behavior, both of which were apparently funded by a group called "Invest In Us." We do not know the original funders of this group.
Matt Osborne, a veteran progressive activist who worked on the project, said he hoped that such deceptive tactics would someday be banned from American politics. But in the meantime, he said, he believes that Republicans are using such trickery and that Democrats cannot unilaterally give it up.
I've said before that when you're resorting to deception to win an argument, you're admitting that you can't win it through honest means. Trying to trick people because "the other side is doing it" is blatant hypocrisy.
Apparently this was a small-scale operation, but I don't think "It probably didn't affect the outcome of the election" is a valid defense. This sort of thing should indeed be illegal.
This is just a small-scale example of the lies both parties put on the TV every election cycle though, so what's the difference really?
Trump is basically demanding a prime-time viewing slot tomorrow night for a speech from the border. This signals for all the world he is going to declare a national emergency. First of all, the networks should NEVER cave to such a nakedly political speech. Second, if Trump does declare the emergency, I will view it as nothing less than him declaring he has dictatorial powers. If the President of the United States can just invent emergencies to do an end run around an entire branch of government, and the media facilitates it, then we are probably already too far gone to be saved.
Trump is basically demanding a prime-time viewing slot tomorrow night for a speech from the border. This signals for all the world he is going to declare a national emergency. First of all, the networks should NEVER cave to such a nakedly political speech. Second, if Trump does declare the emergency, I will view it as nothing less than him declaring he has dictatorial powers. If the President of the United States can just invent emergencies to do an end run around an entire branch of government, and the media facilitates it, then we are probably already too far gone to be saved.
What do you think the steel tariffs were? It was a test run for this type of BS.
And networks should run it. They should also fun fact checking measures and have experts lined up to counter everything he’s about to spew. If they don’t, they are letting those that do cover it (Fox News) dictate the message until the evening news or even the morning news.
Comments
Also, keep in mind Europe is no panacea. There is plenty of 'old money' there that isn't touched by their taxation systems.
In this case - the amount of money these people are making is ludicrous. The amount of money they'd *still* be making is ludicrous (only would be slightly less ludicrous).
That money would be used to benefit all people.
As others have pointed out - with progressive tax brackets not only targeting the top .01%, it's also not really a "drop in the bucket" anymore.
I do tend to agree simply reshaping the tax system will not fix everything. Particularly because one side (Conservatives) have such a vested interest in keeping rich people rich, that I suspect you'd see every single conservative administration trying to undo the effects of a tax change.
Unfortunately - as with just about all things we say in this thread: Have to get rid of money in politics, first...
In fact the pressures seem to be the other way with positions continuing to harden. Boris Johnson has spoken up in support of leaving the EU without a deal, claiming that best represents what people voted for. Personally I think that's a tactical error on his part as making that argument will substantially increase the likelihood of a further referendum (which MPs supporting Leave are generally strongly against). The reasoning for that goes as follows:
- the basis on which people voted is not known, but clearly people made assumptions about what they expected to happen.
- quite a few MPs have said publicly that they support the idea of leaving the EU in principle, but that they would prefer to remain rather than leave on the basis of no deal (the 209 MPs signing the letter asking May to rule out a no-deal Brexit referred to in the article I linked include both Leave and Remain supporters).
- given that position is not uncommon for MPs, to suggest that it is/was not also held by many voters does not seem to me to be a credible argument.
- therefore suggesting that the previous referendum supported the idea of a no-deal Brexit seems no more democratic to me than MPs ignoring the result of the referendum and voting to remain anyway.
- there's no realistic possibility of MPs voting directly to remain, but it is possible that continuing to push the idea of no-deal will result in a majority voting for another referendum as the only acceptable option to break a Parliamentary deadlock.
Current opinion polls suggest there's now a small majority in favor of Remain. While such polls need to be treated with caution, I do find it surprising that so many MPs supporting Leave are prepared to ignore them. By gambling for a hard line Brexit they are continuing to increase the chances of not getting a Brexit at all.
We barely even know what Brexit is going to look like in the end, which gives us little reason to believe that we're going to get the result that people actually wanted when they voted in the previous referendum.
Opinion | The People vs. Donald J. Trump
https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-calls-border-wall-the-least-1501779387-htmlstory.html?fbclid=IwAR0KCDYqK58BgnbcIYKYA6QClp0SCy6QJjeRW3Sy_RM5H9nGzjYCy3MMTp4https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/sunday/trump-impeachment.html
Transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexican, Australian leaders reveal president worried about the politics of immigration
Trump could face jail time
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-could-face-jail-time-after-leaving-office/?fbclid=IwAR1WtTqNTLfda3Ree8uBa4vbb66sDJOEjtrfF72vDFt8bLZGYhmbXQbCLIUState-funded religious schools reject black children who 'will traumatize their classmates'
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5440141,00.html?fbclid=IwAR0VjaSwFzI59ACAgp1T_q5MlU2mSlKazb6GtjRK8bZii-cMdrZ1aRN4G0QUltra-Orthodox children of Ethiopian descent are not accepted by Talmud Torah institutions in Jerusalem, while one official is recorded telling parents their child was rejected due to his skin color.
Trump Claims Most Furloughed Federal Workers Are Rooting For Him On Wall Funding
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shutdown-furloughed-workers_us_5c2fc50ce4b0bcb4c25bab28?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&fbclid=IwAR0wPt3VlFDiMIRbLsoVpgL8wMhIvCQxAbwhd8EjfIlXZWC3ZdKaZvDhLdQHe doesn’t have any evidence to support that claim.
Trump's grandfather was a pimp and tax evader; his father a member of the KKK
https://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/242-trump-grandfather-pimp-father-kkk.html?fbclid=IwAR0n1vbT6q_tq7fQ2vPvYuN83YOjG3i7rqnRp_3ZLpENMcMM0CdBQeDfLTQU.S. federal judge tosses out conservative Christian lawsuit against ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/u-s-federal-judge-tosses-conservative-christian-lawsuit-drag-queen-story-hour/?fbclid=IwAR1D7a6TH7-TtkmEKrb2udpEmAsOwRPUBdgFvR2LYekJQQ9jM6EgGcYTdKIChristopher Sevier — a man once described as “notorious legal troll with a troubling history of bigotry, violence, and stalking” — has had his lawsuit against “Drag Queen Story Hour” (DQSH) tossed out of court by a U.S. district judge.
Sevier and other conservative Christian activists were trying to sue Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Public Library Executive Director Rhea Lawson for promoting DQSH with taxpayer money. DQSH is a non-profit where local drag queen volunteers read books to kids.
The anti-LGBTQ plaintiffs claimed that DQSH promotes a religion called “secular humanism,” and that, by using tax dollars to create fliers for the program, the city of Houston violated the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment forbidding the establishment of a government religion.
In the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, Sevier and his cohorts wrote, “LGBTQ ideology is immoral, obscene and subversive to human flourishing.” They also claimed the Houston library was “brainwashing the children of Houston.”
If Drag Queens want to read stories to kids, I applaud them.
As we’ve mentioned before, Sevier once tried to sue Apple computers for not filtering out porn on their laptops. He also tried to sue President Obama after A&E canceled the reality show Duck Dynasty.
Gavin McInnes Writes Letters to Neighbors to Take Down Anti-Hate Signs
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gavin-mcinnes-writes-letters-to-neighbors-to-take-down-anti-hate-signs?ref=scrollHe's the founder of the "Proud Boys". But since he has stepped down from them, he wants his neighbors to take down signs that say, "Hate has no place here" in several languages.
Mike Pence had to swear in America’s first bi senator… & she didn’t use a Bible
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/01/mike-pence-swear-americas-first-bi-senator-didnt-use-bible/?fbclid=IwAR0RKdlRAzf8OVUkeiPwp8zqx7LPicCj7H5TBO4EeCeBUKHecA0JmMywZM8Mike Pence, who is known for his extreme Christian conservatism, had to swear in America’s first bisexual U.S. Senator… with a copy of a law book.
Not only was it ironic that someone whose anti-LGBTQ views once even included support for federal funding for conversion therapy had to swear in the country’s first bi U.S. Senator, but Sinema was one of the few members of Congress sworn in on something other than a religious book.
Instead, she was sworn in on a book that contained both the U.S. and the Arizona constitutions.
“Kyrsten always gets sworn in on a Constitution simply because of her love for the Constitution,” said a spokesperson for the senator.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez: Sword Mage!
Disney Princesses play D&D!
The Best Freeway Signs of 2018
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/01/01/1822648/-The-Best-Freeway-Signs-of-2018?detail=emaildkreReligious Group Resists Secular Education for Its Children
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/31/1822602/-Religious-Group-Resists-Secular-Education-for-Its-Children?detail=emaildkreShould a religious group be permitted to deny a secular education to the children of its members in the name of religious freedom? A battle over the right of children to learn, to think, and to be prepared for life in the modern world is now being fought out in the East Ramapo community in New York State.
Articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declare education a fundamental human right that should include “preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society.” While the United States played an active role in drafting the Convention and it was signed during the Clinton administration, it has never been ratified, partly because of opposition by rightwing groups.
The battle in New York over the right of children whose parents are members of a religious sect to a modern education started in 2015 when “graduates” of ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious academies in Brooklyn, New York charged that in violation of state education guidelines that mandate private religious schools provide their students with a “substantially equivalent” education, they had never received appropriate instruction in English, math, science, or history. Almost 60,000 children attend Jewish religious schools in New York City. There are over 250 Orthodox Jewish yeshivas in New York State.
CA Recycling Company Says They’re Drowning in Plastic, Calls for Referendum on Single Use Ban
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/30/1822121/-CA-Recycling-Company-Says-They?detail=emaildkreMitch McConnell is the key, right? Right?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/3/1823227/-Mitch-McConnell-i-sthe-key-right-Right?detail=emaildkreOK, look, I know that I’m not the sharpest scalpel on the surgical tray, but even I can see a pattern emerging when it’s a 20’x20’ checkerboard. In several recent articles, I have talked about the changeover in the House control putting upward pressure on McConnell, as well as Trump. I have received a myriad of well thought out comments, explaining that McConnell doesn’t care about external pressure, in fact, he has been totally resistant to it for the last two years. And fundamentally, I agree with these comments.
But my basic point is a little more nuanced than that. Up until now, Mitch McConnell has been riding his golden chariot across the sky, like some ancient Roman god. He has been able to do this for one simple reason. McConnell has been able to do this for one simple reason, because he can create and effect lasting change without having to get the approval of either of the other two branches, the White House, or the House. That is what has made him as effective as he has been, and given him his power, especially where Trump is concerned.
McConnell has had a get-out-of-jail-free card for the last two years. Ryan’s chattering monkeys in the House could pass any idiocy that they wanted, but McConnell could quash it with impunity, by laying the blame on the Democrats for filibustering said nonsense. This not only let Trump blame the Democrats for obstructionism, it also allowed McConnell to avoid forcing his GOP Senators to vote “no” on some amazingly stupid shit. Talk about the original win-win scenario.
Charisma: Ignore at our peril
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/3/1823292/-Charisma-Ignore-at-our-peril?detail=emaildkreIf we were to try to isolate one factor that makes a difference in Democrats’ chances of taking the White House, what would it be? Experience? Voting record? Toughness? Geography? More than 50 years of history indicate the answer is charisma, a hard to define but know-it-when-we-see-it quality.
Here’s a pithy definition: “a special magnetic charm or appeal.”
Look at the modern history of Presidential elections since 1960 when TV became a major force in politics. When Dems have a charismatic candidate they always win and when they have a charisma-challenged candidate they lose — barring unusual circumstances.
I’ll admit it, my decisions about who has it and who doesn’t are subjective although I try to think of it more as the typical voter’s view instead of just mine. For example, Ronald Reagan’s supposed charisma didn’t work for me because of his politics but I can’t deny that for most voters he had it in spades.
Melissa Joan Hart told her 6-year-old son that only people who believe in Jesus are 'good' — and people are calling her out for 'casual anti-Semitism'
https://www.thisisinsider.com/melissa-joan-hart-told-son-only-christians-are-good-people-anti-semitism-2019-1?utm_content=bufferb61ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR1QNE-iAffezPQM57GmqxNONKorEnnKUIj02dA-_JFk3oUiRAT4Mw22oCcI've met good people of all religions, not just Christians. Even really good Atheists, so I disagree with her premise.
The former "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" star said she warned her 6-year-old son about non-Christians before he switched from a Christian preschool to a traditional school.
"We don't know if these people are good people. We don't know if they believe in Jesus," she said. "And he really took the Jesus part to heart."
She also said she had "heated" conversations with a Jewish boy's mother after he became friends with her son.
Some people are calling her remarks anti-Semitic or otherwise generally offensive against people of non-Christian religions.
Trump Has Promised to Bring Jobs Back. His Tariffs Threaten to Send Them Away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/business/trump-tariffs-trade-war.html?fbclid=IwAR2Cfzsi1IbRAI8cKvzey7q8u-S1DCV1pa5wWFLrBOjqkRLrYPfxc3n0UCQWhere The Idea For Donald Trump's Wall Came From
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/?fbclid=IwAR1fV-LWoyQDR2LYlfawTxOgNgb0KzfOauMlWaooEdpHf_n1Ged5AniUg-M#502cf4314415Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration.
In 2014, Trump’s plan to run for president moved into high gear. His political confidant was consultant Roger Stone. “Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”
Trump supporter blasted by CNN host for repeating ‘ridiculous talking points’ about president’s wall
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/trump-supporter-blasted-cnn-host-repeating-ridiculous-talking-points-presidents-wall/‘Betrayed’: Trump-voting Michigan business owner threatens factory move to Mexico
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/betrayed-trump-voting-michigan-business-owner-threatens-factory-move-mexico/?fbclid=IwAR3bAYqrMl2Z9W1Sx3L7YIZ7Ybn5x1hLbJE7-vywyZsDKL2TCXGoPcwdEV4A Michigan businessman who freely admits he voted for Donald Trump is considering moving his factory production south of the border because of the devastating impact that the president’s tariffs have had on his business.
According to a report in the New York Times, Pat LeBlanc, chairman of EBW Electronics based in Michigan, complained that the tariffs that resulted from the president’s trade wars will cut his profits in half and that he may have to move production to Mexico.
“It’s killing us,” the Republican LeBlanc admitted. “I just feel so betrayed. If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.”
The reports states that raw materials have undergone drastic price increases due to the tariffs, meaning consumers will have to pay more or manufacturers will have to cut costs.
“It’s a tax that comes right off the bottom line,” said EBW’s president, Cory Steeby. “It totally incentivizes you to move out of the United States and build either in Canada or Mexico. These are active conversations right now.”
Trump supporter eyes moving factory to Mexico over tariffs
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/424078-trump-supporter-eyes-moving-factory-to-mexico-over-tariffs?fbclid=IwAR1kT_9bWjS-JTTMnQyCV57AedEBWhePmGaHOEpPwTkrpxFGh0a927KxHEcStory about the same guy as above.
Nobel economist Paul Krugman declares Trump boom "over" as US economy enters "significant slowdown"
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/04/nobel-economist-paul-krugman-declares-trump-boom-over-as-us-economy-enters-significant-slowdown_partner/?fbclid=IwAR0BYtLl710yZzDQzWRtQ4j_523_VOn_29yJqRr6R08SgDhZPQRhvIHpca0I'm sure he'll find a way to blame this on Democrats or Obama... somehow.
In an Astonishing Letter, Delta and United Airlines Pilots Just Told President Trump To Stop and Think
https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/delta-united-airlines-pilots-to-president-trump-cut-nonsense.html?fbclid=IwAR2XeCKy1XyXl5WsaDdDurtb6XTRIHTMkqx9gixRQE6qVNERveq968IvMsQPentagon chief of staff announces resignation
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pentagon-chief-of-staff-announces-resignation/ar-BBRQJdE?fbclid=IwAR1URPJJx4eJC8zIBKodowzDZl-x05_p34yoYXRTr6JKYOwIoAWy0CxJtlEWe Already Have a Border Wall. It’s an Environmental Disaster.
https://truthout.org/articles/we-already-have-a-border-wall-its-an-environmental-disaster/Walls in general cause structural and geological issues, including flood, erosion, and sedimentation, and the poorly-designed, ill-conceived border infrastructure has indeed malfunctioned in serious ways. For instance, in July 2008, a 5.2-mile section of border fence along southern Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument helped cause a devastating flood.
During a storm that dumped 1-2 inches of rain in 90 minutes, the 15-foot-tall wire mesh fence became a towering net for piled-up debris. The built-in drains in the fence were blocked, preventing water from escaping. And the fence’s foundation, buried six feet below the ground, prevented subsurface draining.
The result was surging water up to 7 feet high that funneled directly through the town of Lukeville, Arizona and the neighboring Mexican town of Sonoyta. The floodwaters caused severe damage to buildings, infrastructure, and natural resources.
Two hundred miles east during the same storm, a 5-foot-high concrete wall built across a storm drain by the US Border Patrol caused severe flooding in sister city Nogales, Sonora. This resulted in $8 million in damage, including damage to 578 homes, and the drownings of two people. Mexican officials declared the flood area a disaster zone.
In response to the flooding, Robin Silver, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Arizona Daily Star, “What we are seeing graphically at Organ Pipe was predictable. … When you build an impediment across a stream, it becomes a dam. And providing some holes in a fence is a joke.”
Not only are such walls structurally and logistically unsound, but some designs would violate a 48-year-old treaty between the US and Mexico regarding the construction of border structures that may affect the flow of the Rio Grande or its floodwaters. The 1970 treaty mandates pre-building approval of both the US and Mexican members of the International Boundary and Water Commission. In 2017, as Trump increased his rhetoric around building a wall, the IBWC’s chief Mexican engineer, Antonio Rascón, told NPR that he would block any proposal that violated the binational treaty. “A concrete wall that blocks trans-border water movement is a total obstruction. If they plan that type of project, we will oppose it,” he said.
DEMOCRATS BEGIN PUSHING BILL THAT DEMANDS TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS, NEW ETHICS AND NEPOTISM RULES
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-trump-tax-returns-ethics-impeachment-1280423?fbclid=IwAR2loIalogunKtw4oBuDAKVDnnM0Hcv0wxMGwZOeWckEzxQOSKDDRlVV2s0Is good.
https://www.azfamily.com/news/woman-in-vegetative-state-gives-birth-at-hacienda-healthcare-in/article_9342c7c4-0fb2-11e9-8138-4fcd53869faf.html
1.) Nationwide automatic voter registration: As I have said before, voting is a right of citizens of this country, not a privilege. There is no reason you should have to jump through hoops to do so.
2.) Same-day registration: Again, what is the argument against this?? Why is there an arbitrary timeline you are put on that decides if you are allowed to vote or not??
3.) Two weeks of early voting in every state: People have children, jobs, and other obligations that sometimes make voting on election day an impossibility. Again, there is no legitimate argument against early voting.
4.) Funding for States to adopt paper ballots: We have seen the Russians hack into the voter rolls, even if they haven't changed votes. We know for certain in Texas votes were flipping on electronic machines based on the testimonials of those who said it happened to them. We can no longer trust technology to do this for us. The only argument against paper ballots is impatience in getting the results.
5.) Restoration of the voting rights of ex-felons nationwide: Again, how can we expect ex-felons to reintegrate into society in a positive way if we don't even allow them to participate in what is arguably the most meaningful part of it??
6.) Declaring Election Day a Nation Holiday: That we hold this on a Tuesday is a relic of the 18th century. That Columbus Day is a holiday and Election Day is not is absurd. This should have happened YEARS ago. It is arguably more important than any other day on the calendar.
7.) Congress can set uniform voting procedures for Federal elections: How can we have fair elections for nationwide seats when we have 50 separate sets of rules for who, how, and where people can vote??
8.) End partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent commissions instead of state legislatures to draw congressional maps: What is the counter argument to this, that whoever is in charge should be able to draw their own field of battle??
9.)Require dark money groups to disclose their donors: Everyone says they want to help get money out of politics, this is one concrete step to doing so.
10.) Require by law Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates reveal ten years of their tax returns: We now have concrete proof of what happens when someone doesn't. The entire White House is turned over to a crime family. Again, what is the argument, that the public shouldn't know what is in the financial closet of the people asking to be given the most powerful position in the world??
Again, this will easily pass the House. Mitch McConnell has said it is going nowhere in the Senate. Of course it isn't. Because almost everything in this bill would curtail the artificial advantage the Republican Party has built for themselves over the last 30 years. Almost everything in this bill is simply there to make it easier for people to exercise their RIGHT to vote. A refusal to even consider it, much less vote for it, tells us exactly what we already know from all available recent evidence about the Republican Party. They don't believe certain people should vote, and they don't really believe in the concept of democracy at all, even in our Constitutional Republic version of it. Rejecting all these completely common sense approaches shows nothing by utter contempt for the idea that people should be able to exercise this right.
Oh my, the bad Republicans want to kill grandma, throw all the black people in prison, steal money from the poor so they starve and give it to the rich, oh and kill our kids by not making gun ownership illegal.
Am I forgetting anything?
You are joking, but at least two of those things are demonstrably happening.
If it were really the case that this bill stands no chance of becoming law at the moment, but that individual proposals within it could do so if taken forward separately, I would have more sympathy with your position. However, I suspect that is not the case ...
And the moral arguement against it would be an invasion of privacy that can be sold to the general public, or a “This is just an attack on Trunp.”
6 may also be a killer. Statutory holidays cost businesses money due to a loss of production or having to pay employees overtime.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-growth/family-day-comes-with-hefty-price-tag/article547353/
If your forcing businesses to close, some would rather pay a fine and operate, knowing that there is less competition during that day so the trade off would be worth it.
Something better might be the state having to pay for your time. If you have to stand in a line for 6 hours to vote, you get a nice cheque from the government (or deptartment in charge of running the election) for those 6 hours. Let’s see if that’ll improve the voting efficiency of polling stations.
9 may also be a killer for the same privacy reasons. It’d also probably be too easy to circumvent with shell companies anyway that by the time someone digs out all the information, the election is over.
Breaking up the bill may allow at least some of the points to pass instead of carrying all your eggs in one basket. As it stands this bill wouldn’t be going anywhere and the Democrats know it.
You can call it "grandstanding," but if the GOP is opposing good policies, I think it's worth demonstrating that in the eyes of the public. This way, voters know which politicians support which policies.
You just have to look at Trump refusing to get money for his border wall because he didn’t support the Dreamers part of the bill. He had the money and refused it, but he refused it because he thought the dreamer part of the bill was bad legislation, which is subjective.
The statutory holiday, IMO, is the one thing that can kill this bill as their is an economic cost attached to it. I wouldn’t be surprised if a politican voted against it because of this, but in the next election their opponent would say “Congressman X voted to keep Dark Money in politics how can you trust him”
Expect 8 to be challenged up to the Supreme Court as well and if the right leaning judges say it is unconstitutional for the Federal government dictate to states how to elections are run (which has already happened), there goes the entire bill and not just that small section.
Break them up, pass each part one by one to allow at least some of it see the light of day. Why have it go in as all or nothing?
I've said before that when you're resorting to deception to win an argument, you're admitting that you can't win it through honest means. Trying to trick people because "the other side is doing it" is blatant hypocrisy.
Apparently this was a small-scale operation, but I don't think "It probably didn't affect the outcome of the election" is a valid defense. This sort of thing should indeed be illegal.
The current government shutdown is a good illustration of the likely difficulties if the Democrats did pursue a bipartisan agenda. A funding bill unanimously agreed not long ago by the Senate can't even be put to the vote there now as a result of shifting goalposts. While I'm a great believer in compromise, I also think you need to be able to trust people you're doing deals with. In a situation where you can't trust the President to follow through on any agreements, compromises are bound to be far more difficult to arrive at.
And networks should run it. They should also fun fact checking measures and have experts lined up to counter everything he’s about to spew. If they don’t, they are letting those that do cover it (Fox News) dictate the message until the evening news or even the morning news.