Chris Wallace: I'd like to talk about climate change.
Biden: So would I!
Best line of the whole so-called 'debate'!
Most people probably missed it, but there was a significant move in the worldwide debate on climate change at last week's UN meeting. The US of course offered nothing new there, but China stated they are now aiming to become carbon neutral by 2060. That's the first time they've ever set a long-term target for themselves.
The timing of the announcement is not coincidental of course, with China attempting to take advantage of how weak the US currently appears internationally and themselves become the hub of future international discourse. However, it also reflects the shift in the economics of energy I've been going on about for years. China is easily the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, but up to now has also been heavily investing in new non-renewable energy - such as coal-fired power stations. That has made some sense in a situation where they have been building total energy capacity aggressively, because they have easy access to coal and can use their purchase of that to gain influence with other countries. With it becoming ever more apparent though how much more expensive such power is now - let alone the projected position in future - that was always likely to change. China is due to publish a new 5 year plan for the economy in the next few months and the details of that should give a clear indication of whether they really intend to stick to the 2060 target.
One other point worth mentioning is that China's target is stated to be independent of what any other country does. In past climate change meetings the difficulty of getting agreements has largely been because of the tendency from many countries to make either no commitments or conditional ones. That's of course been understandable in the past where taking action to deal with climate change was seen as expensive and therefore countries wanted to check everyone would have similar commitments before incurring an economic disadvantage. The situation is now reversing though, where it's becoming increasingly obvious that many forms of action will not only help ameliorate climate change, but also be cheaper. It's the countries that are slow to adopt new technologies that are likely to be at an economic disadvantage - in the immediate future as well as in the longer term.
Gretchen Whitmer declared an executive order that Michigan would be carbon neutral by 2050. I feel so much safer now...
(Tongue in cheek, if anybody here doesn't know me by now)
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
The instant reactions from polls seem to be that Biden won the debate because Trump was a belligerent asshole, and the numbers aren't really close. I don't necessarily think it boosts Biden, but the first debate was Trump's best chance to change the narrative of the race, and his decision was to act like a guy who had been doing shots of Jagermeister for 3 hours while his football team was losing. Bitch about the refs, and make fun of the other players.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Yes, because as we saw tonight, and in his long history, Trump always plays by the rules.
My bad, I forgot that in hotly contested primary debates, the democratic thing to do is to give the insider candidate with a lot of money pre-knowledge of debate questions on important topics. Downplay it all you want, you and I both know that foreknowledge of debate questions is a textbook example of naked corruption. Really, there couldn't be anything more obviously undemocratic besides literally changing votes. It just goes to show how far partisanship can go in allowing people to excuse all sorts of wildly unethical things.
The natural question a curious mind would ask, whose singular purpose wasn't uplifting the Democratic Party at all times in all ways, is how often and pervasive such corruption is in the media landscape. Bear in mind after she resigned FOX NEWS hired her. The rot goes both ways.
Are you seriously going to sit here and argue that a political debate taking place in Flint Michigan in 2016 was tipped by someone knowing there would be a question about the water issue? Are you seriously arguing that?
Look, what Brazile did was wrong. CNN was right to fire her. But this wasn't a failure by the DNC. Brazile wasn't working for the DNC. And it's absurd to argue that it tipped the scales. I'd prefer all of these news outlets hire fewer partisan hacks to fill their staffs, but viewers seems to love watching them. She's at Fox now, I'm sure you raised just as much of a stink when they hired such an ethically tarnished person as you are now.
The failure of the DNC was in allowing the institution to be used in an undemocratic fashion to prop up one candidate and conspire to damage another. Again, something we learned from Wikileaks.
I have already accepted that these Watergate-levels of naked corruption will go ignored and swept under the rug. The mere fact that only around 10% of journalists are not Democrats assures this fact. But I won't ever accept any nonsense notions that the Republican Party is uniquely corrupt. The rot of the media, the broken dreams of education, they own all of it because they control all of it.
I've never said anything good about Fox, trust me. Establishment Republicans don't represent me. If I had any political ideology at all, it's that I wish people cared more about each other in this country rather than whatever shallow political belief system they have chosen for themselves.
The instant reactions from polls seem to be that Biden won the debate because Trump was a belligerent asshole, and the numbers aren't really close. I don't necessarily think it boosts Biden, but the first debate was Trump's best chance to change the narrative of the race, and his decision was to act like a guy who had been doing shots of Jagermeister for 3 hours while his football team was losing. Bitch about the refs, and make fun of the other players.
I called it for Biden when I saw the right wing circles with any brains unable to call it for Trump. When your own die hards aren't on board it's the surest sign you didn't do good.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Yes, because as we saw tonight, and in his long history, Trump always plays by the rules.
I don't doubt that Trump used some legal loopholes to finagle his results. It isn't anything any of us wouldn't have done though, unless you're a true blue American who doesn't take any of his legal deductions so they can contribute the maximum possible to the common good. I'm sure all of us don't deduct any of our legal deductions so we can maximize our contributions to the folks who need it...
My bad, I forgot that in hotly contested primary debates, the democratic thing to do is to give the insider candidate with a lot of money pre-knowledge of debate questions on important topics. Downplay it all you want, you and I both know that foreknowledge of debate questions is a textbook example of naked corruption. Really, there couldn't be anything more obviously undemocratic besides literally changing votes. It just goes to show how far partisanship can go in allowing people to excuse all sorts of wildly unethical things.
The natural question a curious mind would ask, whose singular purpose wasn't uplifting the Democratic Party at all times in all ways, is how often and pervasive such corruption is in the media landscape. Bear in mind after she resigned FOX NEWS hired her. The rot goes both ways.
Are you seriously going to sit here and argue that a political debate taking place in Flint Michigan in 2016 was tipped by someone knowing there would be a question about the water issue? Are you seriously arguing that?
Look, what Brazile did was wrong. CNN was right to fire her. But this wasn't a failure by the DNC. Brazile wasn't working for the DNC. And it's absurd to argue that it tipped the scales. I'd prefer all of these news outlets hire fewer partisan hacks to fill their staffs, but viewers seems to love watching them. She's at Fox now, I'm sure you raised just as much of a stink when they hired such an ethically tarnished person as you are now.
The failure of the DNC was in allowing the institution to be used in an undemocratic fashion to prop up one candidate and conspire to damage another. Again, something we learned from Wikileaks.
I have already accepted that these Watergate-levels of naked corruption will go ignored and swept under the rug. The mere fact that only around 10% of journalists are not Democrats assures this fact. But I won't ever accept any nonsense notions that the Republican Party is uniquely corrupt. The rot of the media, the broken dreams of education, they own all of it because they control all of it.
I've never said anything good about Fox, trust me. Establishment Republicans don't represent me. If I had any political ideology at all, it's that I wish people cared more about each other in this country rather than whatever shallow political belief system they have chosen for themselves.
You might want to reevaluate your priors if you think Donna Brazille tipping Clinton to question is "Watergate levels". It's not even remotely close. Hyperbole doesnt serve your argument well - especially because you'll get an admission from pretty much everyone here that there was some corruption in the 2016 primary (That it cost Sanders the nomination, less so).
The instant reactions from polls seem to be that Biden won the debate because Trump was a belligerent asshole, and the numbers aren't really close. I don't necessarily think it boosts Biden, but the first debate was Trump's best chance to change the narrative of the race, and his decision was to act like a guy who had been doing shots of Jagermeister for 3 hours while his football team was losing. Bitch about the refs, and make fun of the other players.
The only pro-trump polls I'm seeing are purely online twitter based ones. Most legit polling sources have it pretty significant for Biden. I'll be curious to see if Fox News does any instant polling on this, since their viewership will skew right (just like some other sources are skewed left).
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Ah, but the catch is how you define income. I seem to remember Trump's niece giving some details of the way he evaded (and I do mean evaded, not avoided) tax. For instance he would write down the values of properties in his businesses in order to create a business loss - and then set that against his personal taxes. In cash terms he's lost nothing and the ability in the US to shield business information means he's lost nothing by creating fictitious losses there either. However, when he wanted to get loans from banks, he would reinflate the property values to act as collateral.
That's of course illegal. Trump's celebrity has helped shield him from the consequences of his actions in the past and his status as president is currently holding off pending legal actions on several fronts. However, he's not going to be immune from prosecution for ever ...
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Ah, but the catch is how you define income. I seem to remember Trump's niece giving some details of the way he evaded (and I do mean evaded, not avoided) tax. For instance he would write down the values of properties in his businesses in order to create a business loss - and then set that against his personal taxes. In cash terms he's lost nothing and the ability in the US to shield business information means he's lost nothing by creating fictitious losses there either. However, when he wanted to get loans from banks, he would reinflate the property values to act as collateral.
That's of course illegal. Trump's celebrity has helped shield him from the consequences of his actions in the past and his status as president is currently holding off pending legal actions on several fronts. However, he's not going to be immune from prosecution for ever ...
My point was theoretical, not any defense of Trump per se.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Ah, but the catch is how you define income. I seem to remember Trump's niece giving some details of the way he evaded (and I do mean evaded, not avoided) tax. For instance he would write down the values of properties in his businesses in order to create a business loss - and then set that against his personal taxes. In cash terms he's lost nothing and the ability in the US to shield business information means he's lost nothing by creating fictitious losses there either. However, when he wanted to get loans from banks, he would reinflate the property values to act as collateral.
That's of course illegal. Trump's celebrity has helped shield him from the consequences of his actions in the past and his status as president is currently holding off pending legal actions on several fronts. However, he's not going to be immune from prosecution for ever ...
The fact that people have been willing to break every rule imaginable in the name of Trump will produce at least one good result; people with money and influence may actually be held accountable for what they do. I remember when prosecuting government officials for WAR CRIMES was off the table. Now we will do it for petty financial shit. Well hot diggidy, this is a new landscape.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Ah, but the catch is how you define income. I seem to remember Trump's niece giving some details of the way he evaded (and I do mean evaded, not avoided) tax. For instance he would write down the values of properties in his businesses in order to create a business loss - and then set that against his personal taxes. In cash terms he's lost nothing and the ability in the US to shield business information means he's lost nothing by creating fictitious losses there either. However, when he wanted to get loans from banks, he would reinflate the property values to act as collateral.
That's of course illegal. Trump's celebrity has helped shield him from the consequences of his actions in the past and his status as president is currently holding off pending legal actions on several fronts. However, he's not going to be immune from prosecution for ever ...
The fact that people have been willing to break every rule imaginable in the name of Trump will produce at least one good result; people with money and influence may actually be held accountable for what they do. I remember when prosecuting government officials for WAR CRIMES was off the table. Now we will do it for petty financial shit. Well hot diggidy, this is a new landscape.
If it actually materializes. The major Democrats are multi-millionaires too...
People are ragging on Chris Wallace "losing control" of the debate, and, to a lesser extent, for Biden not "stopping" Trump from acting like a bull in china shop. And my retort is to ask what short of a shock collar would have prevented Trump's behavior?? If you're playing cards, and someone decides to flip the table, what are you supposed to DO about it per se??
After watching that shit show tonight, if anyone has the audacity,privilege or balls to defend either candidate or party should do everyone else that understands this is a shit show a favor, drink a gallon of bleach. Thank you in advance.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Because, by design, direct taxes on wealth are all but impossible to do as they are unconstitutional.
Taxes on sales, taxes on income, are indirect taxes. They are taxes on the movement of money/goods. Not taxes on the mere possession of the things.
The reason they are impossible is that, by Constitutional wording, the tax amount must be apportioned to the states by population. And obviously, people's wealth in the states has no correlation to the population of the various states. Missisippi is poor as shit compared to California, but California has only 13 times the population and would easily be able to get much more than 13 times the tax.
I'd think if one was sincerely worried about deep corruption in the system they might have more say about, I dunno, someone potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes. Or maybe someone hiring their daughter and son-in-law into important government roles? That stuff seems to me extraordinarily more significant when talking about real-world, harmful corruption than one candidate being told they would be asked about a town's biggest issue prior to a debate in that very town. I think someone sincerely concerned about corruption would be making at least ten times as many posts about that than one insanely obvious debate subject getting out.
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Yes, because as we saw tonight, and in his long history, Trump always plays by the rules.
I don't doubt that Trump used some legal loopholes to finagle his results. It isn't anything any of us wouldn't have done though, unless you're a true blue American who doesn't take any of his legal deductions so they can contribute the maximum possible to the common good. I'm sure all of us don't deduct any of our legal deductions so we can maximize our contributions to the folks who need it...
Loopholes or standard deductions are one thing - fraud is another. Trump's a con man, always has been. He goes beyond the loopholes into just straight fabrications. That's criminal - for poor people.
People are ragging on Chris Wallace "losing control" of the debate, and, to a lesser extent, for Biden not "stopping" Trump from acting like a bull in china shop. And my retort is to ask what short of a shock collar would have prevented Trump's behavior?? If you're playing cards, and someone decides to flip the table, what are you supposed to DO about it per se??
Have the table bolted to the floor.
Short story time, off topic so in spoiler:
Use to work a juice bar in a mall. Almost every day some punk kid(s) would come around and steal our tip jar. Staff complained and said what are we suppose to do? Just watch it constantly? I took the tip jar and replaced it with a styrofoam cup and cut the bottom out of it. The next time the kid walked by to steal the cup, he picked it up and all the change fell out of it notifying the staff that was working and getting that little shithead banned from the mall. Moral of the story. Think outside the box to stop a behavior that you know is going to happen.
I didn't watch it, but shouldn't the moderator have access to muting the mics? Or is that concept not riveting television? Or was the mic muted and Trump was still yelling over Biden?
Apparently the next debate is a town hall, and even I would think Trump would have the sense not to yell at actual voters. But he just had a town hall. And while he didn't scream at anyone, his visible lack of empathy and disinterest to everything they were asking him was palpable.
People's lives have been fundamentally altered the last six months in ways they have never before experienced. And I think people are just altogether over him telling them everything is wonderful and would have been worse in some hypothetical he invents. His only answer to the COVID-19 death count is (usually) "200,000 is better than 2,000,000). Which isn't much different than telling someone who just got a cancer diagnosis that "hey, could be worse, your body could have been cleaved in half in a car accident instead".
The majority of people are absolutely stretched to the breaking point and utterly exhausted by what has transpired, and I simply can't fathom how insisting everything is perfectly fine is a winning strategy. Almost NO ONE believes that. Their own daily routine enforces the fact that isn't the case.
People's lives have been fundamentally altered the last six months in ways they have never before experienced.
...
The majority of people are absolutely stretched to the breaking point and utterly exhausted by what has transpired, and I simply can't fathom how insisting everything is perfectly fine is a winning strategy. Almost NO ONE believes that. Their own daily routine enforces the fact that isn't the case.
It's called "downplaying" reality. You don't tell people the truth, you tell them lies that you think will help your case to be re-elected. It's been a constant stream of lies, that is what's exhausting.
If he gets re-elected expect even worse behavior from him. Today, he showed he doesn't give a damn about rules (so much for two minutes uninterrupted time) or common courtesy. You can be certain this toddler behavior is what he displays to everyone that has to out up with listening to him - cabinet members, government workers, scientists, foreign leaders. It's just gross. He's gotta go, he's terrible for America.
Why the hell is everyone downplaying what Trump actually did with White Supremacy?
Not only didn’t he condemn them, he gave one of the biggest and violent groups a shout out and asked them to ‘stand by?’
Now yes, Biden fed him the name, but the simple task of saying ‘stand down, the violence isn’t helping’ was beyond him.
If anything shows he is not serious about cracking down on the violence that is happening throughout the country, it’s that single line which the group is now using as a slogan.
Why the hell is everyone downplaying what Trump actually did with White Supremacy?
Not only didn’t he condemn them, he gave one of the biggest and violent groups a shout out and asked them to ‘stand by?’
Now yes, Biden fed him the name, but the simple task of saying ‘stand down, the violence isn’t helping’ was beyond him.
If anything shows he is not serious about cracking down on the violence that is happening throughout the country, it’s that single line which the group is now using as a slogan.
You add this to the fact that he basically encouraged supporters to be "poll watchers" (ostensibly, what they would be "watching" for is Democrats exercising their right to vote) and......yeah. Whether what he said was a slip of the tongue or purposeful, the "stand by" was seen as a call to action by the group themselves. This is beyond dispute. And I've seen enough video of cops being positively chummy with groups of Proud Boys to be concerned about what that means. This is a group that's founding principle is engaging in street violence. The only way to deny this is to ignore video of their founder in his own words not only encouraging it, but relishing in the very idea:
Why the hell is everyone downplaying what Trump actually did with White Supremacy?
Not only didn’t he condemn them, he gave one of the biggest and violent groups a shout out and asked them to ‘stand by?’
Now yes, Biden fed him the name, but the simple task of saying ‘stand down, the violence isn’t helping’ was beyond him.
If anything shows he is not serious about cracking down on the violence that is happening throughout the country, it’s that single line which the group is now using as a slogan.
The full quote is probably worse: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." It's no surprise that seems to have been taken by the Proud Boys as supportive of their agenda.
As with so many things Trumpian though it becomes impossible to criticize this to the extent that would have happened with previous presidents because new controversial statements for the media and public to be concerned about appear in such quick succession.
Another thing that's sort of bubbled up since last night is the media's framing of the whole debacle. It actually rather nicely touches on some of the conversations we've had here in the last few weeks.
The media is "bothsides"ing the hell out this mess. I wasnt impressed by Biden overly much. He was pretty meh for the most of the night, but it's clear that Trump was way, way, way out of line for the whole night. The debate was bad, but Trump contributed so much more to that than Biden did.
Rather than articulating that, the media is going for the pithier "Worst debate evarrrr" approach, which is both disingenuous and disappointing.
Yeah its not like they have established names, infrastructure and even personal hand signs. Oh wait...
It wasn't white supremacists who murdered about a dozen people in a festival of destruction and violence across the country the past few weeks. But by all means, tell me more about hand signs.
Yeah its not like they have established names, infrastructure and even personal hand signs. Oh wait...
It wasn't white supremacists who murdered about a dozen people in a festival of destruction and violence across the country the past few weeks. But by all means, tell me more about hand signs.
I guess it depends on how you view the police. Since they DO target black americans. So yeah, I think I WOULD say it was white supremacists responsible for a "festival of destruction and violence". Except they've been doing it for decades. And instead of about a dozen, try thousands. But by all means, tell me about more the protests of people literally fighting for their lives.
Comments
Gretchen Whitmer declared an executive order that Michigan would be carbon neutral by 2050. I feel so much safer now...
(Tongue in cheek, if anybody here doesn't know me by now)
But maybe I'm just wired in peculiar fashion.
You're only taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If your net INCOME is less than x, you don't pay taxes. Period! What about this don't people on the left understand? If I have $100 quadrillion buried in my backyard I pay $0 in taxes. FUCKING $0. No shit, legally...
Yes, because as we saw tonight, and in his long history, Trump always plays by the rules.
The failure of the DNC was in allowing the institution to be used in an undemocratic fashion to prop up one candidate and conspire to damage another. Again, something we learned from Wikileaks.
I have already accepted that these Watergate-levels of naked corruption will go ignored and swept under the rug. The mere fact that only around 10% of journalists are not Democrats assures this fact. But I won't ever accept any nonsense notions that the Republican Party is uniquely corrupt. The rot of the media, the broken dreams of education, they own all of it because they control all of it.
I've never said anything good about Fox, trust me. Establishment Republicans don't represent me. If I had any political ideology at all, it's that I wish people cared more about each other in this country rather than whatever shallow political belief system they have chosen for themselves.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448
I called it for Biden when I saw the right wing circles with any brains unable to call it for Trump. When your own die hards aren't on board it's the surest sign you didn't do good.
I don't doubt that Trump used some legal loopholes to finagle his results. It isn't anything any of us wouldn't have done though, unless you're a true blue American who doesn't take any of his legal deductions so they can contribute the maximum possible to the common good. I'm sure all of us don't deduct any of our legal deductions so we can maximize our contributions to the folks who need it...
You might want to reevaluate your priors if you think Donna Brazille tipping Clinton to question is "Watergate levels". It's not even remotely close. Hyperbole doesnt serve your argument well - especially because you'll get an admission from pretty much everyone here that there was some corruption in the 2016 primary (That it cost Sanders the nomination, less so).
The only pro-trump polls I'm seeing are purely online twitter based ones. Most legit polling sources have it pretty significant for Biden. I'll be curious to see if Fox News does any instant polling on this, since their viewership will skew right (just like some other sources are skewed left).
Ah, but the catch is how you define income. I seem to remember Trump's niece giving some details of the way he evaded (and I do mean evaded, not avoided) tax. For instance he would write down the values of properties in his businesses in order to create a business loss - and then set that against his personal taxes. In cash terms he's lost nothing and the ability in the US to shield business information means he's lost nothing by creating fictitious losses there either. However, when he wanted to get loans from banks, he would reinflate the property values to act as collateral.
That's of course illegal. Trump's celebrity has helped shield him from the consequences of his actions in the past and his status as president is currently holding off pending legal actions on several fronts. However, he's not going to be immune from prosecution for ever ...
My point was theoretical, not any defense of Trump per se.
The fact that people have been willing to break every rule imaginable in the name of Trump will produce at least one good result; people with money and influence may actually be held accountable for what they do. I remember when prosecuting government officials for WAR CRIMES was off the table. Now we will do it for petty financial shit. Well hot diggidy, this is a new landscape.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/politics/first-presidential-debate-hits-and-misses/index.html
If it actually materializes. The major Democrats are multi-millionaires too...
Because, by design, direct taxes on wealth are all but impossible to do as they are unconstitutional.
Taxes on sales, taxes on income, are indirect taxes. They are taxes on the movement of money/goods. Not taxes on the mere possession of the things.
The reason they are impossible is that, by Constitutional wording, the tax amount must be apportioned to the states by population. And obviously, people's wealth in the states has no correlation to the population of the various states. Missisippi is poor as shit compared to California, but California has only 13 times the population and would easily be able to get much more than 13 times the tax.
Loopholes or standard deductions are one thing - fraud is another. Trump's a con man, always has been. He goes beyond the loopholes into just straight fabrications. That's criminal - for poor people.
Have the table bolted to the floor.
Short story time, off topic so in spoiler:
I didn't watch it, but shouldn't the moderator have access to muting the mics? Or is that concept not riveting television? Or was the mic muted and Trump was still yelling over Biden?
People's lives have been fundamentally altered the last six months in ways they have never before experienced. And I think people are just altogether over him telling them everything is wonderful and would have been worse in some hypothetical he invents. His only answer to the COVID-19 death count is (usually) "200,000 is better than 2,000,000). Which isn't much different than telling someone who just got a cancer diagnosis that "hey, could be worse, your body could have been cleaved in half in a car accident instead".
The majority of people are absolutely stretched to the breaking point and utterly exhausted by what has transpired, and I simply can't fathom how insisting everything is perfectly fine is a winning strategy. Almost NO ONE believes that. Their own daily routine enforces the fact that isn't the case.
It's called "downplaying" reality. You don't tell people the truth, you tell them lies that you think will help your case to be re-elected. It's been a constant stream of lies, that is what's exhausting.
If he gets re-elected expect even worse behavior from him. Today, he showed he doesn't give a damn about rules (so much for two minutes uninterrupted time) or common courtesy. You can be certain this toddler behavior is what he displays to everyone that has to out up with listening to him - cabinet members, government workers, scientists, foreign leaders. It's just gross. He's gotta go, he's terrible for America.
Why the hell is everyone downplaying what Trump actually did with White Supremacy?
Not only didn’t he condemn them, he gave one of the biggest and violent groups a shout out and asked them to ‘stand by?’
Now yes, Biden fed him the name, but the simple task of saying ‘stand down, the violence isn’t helping’ was beyond him.
If anything shows he is not serious about cracking down on the violence that is happening throughout the country, it’s that single line which the group is now using as a slogan.
You add this to the fact that he basically encouraged supporters to be "poll watchers" (ostensibly, what they would be "watching" for is Democrats exercising their right to vote) and......yeah. Whether what he said was a slip of the tongue or purposeful, the "stand by" was seen as a call to action by the group themselves. This is beyond dispute. And I've seen enough video of cops being positively chummy with groups of Proud Boys to be concerned about what that means. This is a group that's founding principle is engaging in street violence. The only way to deny this is to ignore video of their founder in his own words not only encouraging it, but relishing in the very idea:
The full quote is probably worse: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." It's no surprise that seems to have been taken by the Proud Boys as supportive of their agenda.
As with so many things Trumpian though it becomes impossible to criticize this to the extent that would have happened with previous presidents because new controversial statements for the media and public to be concerned about appear in such quick succession.
The media is "bothsides"ing the hell out this mess. I wasnt impressed by Biden overly much. He was pretty meh for the most of the night, but it's clear that Trump was way, way, way out of line for the whole night. The debate was bad, but Trump contributed so much more to that than Biden did.
Rather than articulating that, the media is going for the pithier "Worst debate evarrrr" approach, which is both disingenuous and disappointing.
Yeah its not like they have established names, infrastructure and even personal hand signs. Oh wait...
It wasn't white supremacists who murdered about a dozen people in a festival of destruction and violence across the country the past few weeks. But by all means, tell me more about hand signs.
I guess it depends on how you view the police. Since they DO target black americans. So yeah, I think I WOULD say it was white supremacists responsible for a "festival of destruction and violence". Except they've been doing it for decades. And instead of about a dozen, try thousands. But by all means, tell me about more the protests of people literally fighting for their lives.