• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Tax Proposals:

Harris: 44% tax rate for top 1% earners
Trump: 37% tax rate for top 1% earners

Harris: 28% corporate tax rate (increase of 7%)
Trump: 20% corporate tax rate (decrease of 1%)

Harris: 25% minimum tax rate for richest households (ensures
richest pay at least 25% in taxes)
Trump: NO minimum rate (enables little to no taxes paid due to loopholes
by the richest)

This is why the rich vote for Trump. As billionaire Leona Helmsley once said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."
Click to expand...

Going a bit further to focus on the people other than the top 1% - only the top 10% would likely benefit from the Project 2025's tax reform proposals. The other 90% of Americans would end up with less after tax income after the changes, before other factors come into play, with significant gains by the wealthiest and significant losses to those with the least.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Going a bit further to focus on the people other than the top 1% - only the top 10% would likely benefit from the Project 2025's tax reform proposals. The other 90% of Americans would end up with less after tax income after the changes, before other factors come into play, with significant gains by the wealthiest and significant losses to those with the least.
Click to expand...

As long as it doesn't make ME pay more in taxes, I'm good.

(Every Trump supporter)
 
JoeMorgue said:
Does anyone here honestly think he actually cares about his taxes?
Click to expand...

It's entirely plausible that that's a real rationalization. So long as Republicans can pretend to be the choice for the selfish instead of just the choice for the ignorant, insane, filthy rich, and/or traitorous, as they do, that's a significant demographic that they can appeal to.
 
Last edited:
It's the border thing all over again.

"I support Trump because I want the border secure!"

But he's NOT making the border secure. He had an entire term and he didn't do squat about the border. Republicans have vetoed every border security bill.

Denying that the side you are supporting ISN'T doing the thing you are supporting them for when that's an objective fact has to be called out.

Trump is not going to lower taxes (for anybody in this discussion lest any pedantic ******** @ me for no reason). That's one of those "fact" things.

So there is no honest way to go "I'm voting for Trump because he's lower taxes."
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Yeah. Who would be on the Harris/Walz transition team? No one you've heard of.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense for a few reasons. First, especially in the Democratic party the top positions in transition teams are always seasoned party leaders, and they bring in others who are experts in the field.

Republicans once did things the same way.


But this is what Trump has to do, because he doesn't actually know anyone who could do it. All he knows are the names in the media. He doesn't have an actual staff to consult with.
Click to expand...

And even then, in 2016 Chris Christie was named as the Trump transition chair and he hired a staff and brought in party leaders and then a few weeks after Trump won, the Christie was fired and the whole operation shut down. They started over from scratch, but barely got off the ground by the time he was innagurated. There were high priority transition tasks that were never done.

Also, Trump did not have a transition team for the new Biden administration.

At least when Harris takes over there will be a functional and professional process. (Even better that they're not adversarial)
 
If Trump gets elected (or otherwise gets into office) I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a professional, orderly, and useful transition with the outgoing party isn't going to be on the front page of priority list.
 
CarbShark said:
the top positions in transition teams are always seasoned party leaders, and they bring in others who are experts in the field.
)
Click to expand...

Yeah, and no one actually knows who those people really are, because they are "party leaders." And experts in _what_ field?

Come on, list the experts in political transition practices?

Yes, they exist. No, the public doesn't know who they are. Because they are staffers who have been doing things like working for congressmen.

Who were the members of Biden's transition team? Without looking it up, how many can you name? Did Obama maybe have Rahm Emmanuel? Or was that just his c-o-s?

Meanwhile, you still know that Trump had Chris Christie. He had to do that because he didn't know any of the experts or party leaders.
 
Stacyhs said:
So you think your taxes won't go up, but what do you think inflation and tariffs will do to that tax savings?







But, what the hell...as long as your taxes don't go up...right?
Click to expand...

And Donnie does not get that it;s a two way street....other courntires will slap a tariff on US GOods in retailation.
Problem is you can fence yourself in, but you cannot fence the rest of the world out.
 
Last edited:
CarbShark said:
This is nonsense for a few reasons. First, especially in the Democratic party the top positions in transition teams are always seasoned party leaders, and they bring in others who are experts in the field.

Republicans once did things the same way.




And even then, in 2016 Chris Christie was named as the Trump transition chair and he hired a staff and brought in party leaders and then a few weeks after Trump won, the Christie was fired and the whole operation shut down. They started over from scratch, but barely got off the ground by the time he was innagurated. There were high priority transition tasks that were never done.

Also, Trump did not have a transition team for the new Biden administration.

At least when Harris takes over there will be a functional and professional process. (Even better that they're not adversarial)
Click to expand...

Let's face it, Trump pretty much just listens to the voiced in his head.
That he is stiffing standard GOP leadership just shows that somes of the brakes that were in place in Trump 1.0 will not be around for Trump 2.0 I am convinced that if gets in he will wreck the economy, try to make the US a dictatorship, and start a War.
 


Trae Crowder

What is the other "deeply unsettling mutilated animal corpse story" about RFK Jr. (this time involving a whale)?

Also amusing about the attacks on Walz.(Each more deeply innocuous than the last)
 
dudalb said:
A movie about the voices inside of Trump head, a la 'Inside Out" would be a realy scary movie.
Click to expand...

In honor of recently deceased pro-wrestler Sid Eudy (Sid Vicious, Psycho Sid, Sid Justice) I'm going to quote what a Youtuber opined the inside of Sid's head was like. I think it applies to Trump perfectly.

"If you were to look inside Sid's head you would see the Prodigy 'Smack my Bitch Up' video, but with all the actors replaced by Muppets."

(Honorable mention that would also apply to Trump: "Sid talks like refrigerator poetry but the only magnets are the ones that read 'incomprehensible screaming'")
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
"Regulatory state will be reduced" means "corporations will be allowed to do anything they want".
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I'd agree with many conservatives that some times regulations go too far. But a world without regulations is far far worse. The one thing I've learned is that people will push against and often far past what the rules are. Especially when money is involved. And if there are no rules, they will go absolutely wild.

Imagine a world without the FDA? Where drug companies could do what they wanted. Or the Consumer Protection Agency? Or the SEC? Or the Department of Agriculture. Or OSHA? Or the EPA? This would be an invitation for polluters.

People forget just how bad the air use to be in major US Cities before the Clean Air Act was passed.

Regulatory agencies play a major role that Congress is unable to do.
 
All you righties can stop bitching about Harris and Walz not giving any interviews now:

Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will sit with CNN for their first joint interview on Thursday as Democrats work to broaden their base’s excitement from last week’s Democratic National Convention.

The interview, conducted by CNN’s chief political correspondent and anchor Dana Bash, will air at 9 p.m. ET on Thursday. It occurs as the candidates embark on a bus tour through the battleground state of Georgia and marks the first time Harris has sat with a journalist for an in-depth, on-the-record conversation since President Joe Biden dropped his bid for a second term and endorsed her on July 21.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll all find something else to whine about, though.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's the border thing all over again.
Click to expand...

Not going to disagree there.

JoeMorgue said:
"I support Trump because I want the border secure!"

But he's NOT making the border secure. He had an entire term and he didn't do squat about the border. Republicans have vetoed every border security bill.
Click to expand...

Didn't do squat? That sounds rather false.

He engaged in high profile actions that had virtually no positive effect and lots of low profile actions that had serious negative effects. And both lied and fostered a culture of lying about all kinds of things to... everyone they could.

Trump sabotaged the US and the border, in short, and his supporters want to pretend that he did the exact opposite.

That rather does sound quite similar to how Project 2025 is advocating greater tax burdens for hardworking Americans and Republicans are pretending that Trump won't make taxes worse. Just not in the "didn't do squat" way.


JoeMorgue said:
Denying that the side you are supporting ISN'T doing the thing you are supporting them for when that's an objective fact has to be called out.

Trump is not going to lower taxes (for anybody in this discussion lest any pedantic ******** @ me for no reason). That's one of those "fact" things.

So there is no honest way to go "I'm voting for Trump because he's lower taxes."
Click to expand...

It's probably splitting hairs here and doing that pedantic thing but... there is. So long as one is ignorant, whether willfully or not, that can be an honest statement. There is no informed and intelligent way to get there, but it can be honest.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom