George Will is an outspoken anti-Trumper. Not surprising.
Dem primaries begin! Let there be fire and brimstone in Iowa!
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
George Will is an outspoken anti-Trumper. Not surprising.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Look, we know main stream media and Washington want things to go back to the "way they were" as fast as possible. A 78 year old senial Joe Biden would be IDEAL for that. He would be a figurehead while all the professional politicians would go right back to establishing the swamp the way it should be (in their minds).
This is what the vote will be about in November. Go backwards or let Trump continue to shake the bees nest for another 4 years.
I think Trump wins that debate.
This is what the vote will be about in November. Go backwards or let Trump continue to shake the bees nest for another 4 years.
I think Trump wins that debate.
Again, this country would be better off with three to fove partys holding some power... that pretty much would mean that you don’t get to run rampant with nonsense the second you have 51% of control... they really should make more requirements for 60 to 67% to be on board to pass laws so that you have to at least moderately appease the other half of the country... or at least some of it...
With third parties, the hyper religious conservatives can have a party they can control... the leftist socialists can have one, the globalist scum can have one, and the moderate left and moderate right can each have one...
It really does make the government have to work for more than a select few to get stuff done...
The Dems are going to all come out to demonize trump right now cause the globalists in control know that is the only thing holding them together... And once they fraction up the people who fled to the Republican side will splinter off and that party will crack in two as well
The funny thing is if Trump wins re-election, he will have damaged the globalists running both parties more than all the third party people who ran against the corruption of those parties ever did...
Still I wish he wasn’t so openly an *******...
i just know a metric ton of people from different walks of life and it feels like the ship has sailed for holding that party together...
There are Republicans who like Big Government. George Will is one, along with the Bush family, Mitt Romney, and Richard Nixon to name a few.
Fine enough but at the moment both parties, especially the Dems, can get enough done through the regulatory state that they don't have to worry about a lot about passing bills in Congress. This way they can advance their agenda with things the public doesn't really like but not be accountable to the voters.
I would like a stronger third party like the Libertarians to keep the other two a little more honest.
This x1000.
Inlike the Libertarians a lot, but they are really two parties in one... the majority are a legit moderate party based on minimal government intrusion... but the rest are a bunch of anarchist nutjobs ... the first part can really attract people but the second is why they aren’t taken more seriously...
Yep, I align with the first group.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,447
- Reaction score
- 5,517
- Points
- 113
Trump may have eliminated a lot of regulations but the Federal Government is spending more than ever. Speaking of eliminating regulations, I encourage all yinz Trumptards to watch the movie “Dark Waters”.
I'd be down with the Libertarians except they're weak on national defense and want open borders.
Their last Presidential candidate didn't help the cause of being taken more seriously.
Spending comes from the House, not the President.
Last edited:
If a strong third party emerges now it will be the Democrat Socialists splitting off from the Democrats after Joe or Bernie lose massively in November.
The regular Dems will tell the Socialists we lost because of you so GTFO and the Socialists will tell the Dems we lost because you're not Leftist enough so we're Getting TFO.
Front page of my local paper today has a story about the most recent two-time Democrat candidate for sheriff (he lost both times) resigning from the county Democrat Committee and switching to the GOP after other committee members called him a racist and a Nazi because he supported the gun rights protests in Virginia. Democrats outnumber Republicans 2.5-to-1 in my county but most county and state elected offices have been won by Republicans over the last 8 years.
The regular Dems will tell the Socialists we lost because of you so GTFO and the Socialists will tell the Dems we lost because you're not Leftist enough so we're Getting TFO.
Front page of my local paper today has a story about the most recent two-time Democrat candidate for sheriff (he lost both times) resigning from the county Democrat Committee and switching to the GOP after other committee members called him a racist and a Nazi because he supported the gun rights protests in Virginia. Democrats outnumber Republicans 2.5-to-1 in my county but most county and state elected offices have been won by Republicans over the last 8 years.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,925
- Reaction score
- 15,720
- Points
- 113
Socialists won't split from the Dem party. A parasite needs a host.
Not if they think they are more powerful than the host.
Got a PM from a political bud of mine today who literally works for the Democrats' Congressional Campaign Committee. He's an old-school Labor Democrat and all-in for Creepy Joe but he said he's leaving the party if they nominate Bernie. I've been telling him for a few years that the party doesn't want his kind.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,476
- Reaction score
- 14,655
- Points
- 113
I've been saying this for a while now. It will be the death of the DNC for a while.
Remember when age was an issue for Republican candidates? Guess what?! The rules have changed simply because (D)
DNC Changes Debate Format to Allow Biden to Sit Instead of Stand
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), aided by CNN, appears to be changing the rules for the next Democratic presidential nominee debate again.
This time, apparently, so former vice president Joe Biden can sit down.
The most pertinent part of a POLITICO article about the Sanders and Biden camps clashing over the debate rules states:
And while the Biden camp denies pressuring the DNC and CNN to allow Joe to take a load off, the Sanders camp outwardly objected to the rule change. Team Biden did not. Usually, in the murky world of backroom political deals, this means you’re in on it.
“Why does Joe Biden not want to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. Sanders on the debate stage March 15 and have an opportunity to defend his record and articulate his vision for the future?” quipped Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders’s senior adviser.
Team Biden hit back in a predictably lame fashion: “We want to have an exchange of ideas next week in Phoenix. We look forward to taking voter questions in a town hall-style setting,” said Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield.
“It is odd to see a campaign that says it is based on revolution arguing for the status quo because ‘this is how every other debate has been done.’ Why is Sen. Sanders opposed to a little change?”
The DNC did a slightly better job making the whole thing seem legit.
“After 10 debates, the DNC worked with its network partners to adapt the March debate to the smaller field of candidates and to give voters more of a voice. This format provides candidates longer response times, and for the first time, will incorporate questions from undecided voters in the audience,” DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said.
In other words, March’s debate is designed to be seen by fewer people, with less action and more droning on.
The idea may seem counterintuitive at first, with 33 million people watching the debate before last, and 15.3 million watching the last contest in February.
Factor in that the DNC hardly wants more Americans watching its favored (almost entirely senile candidate) being torn apart by a communist with their logo affixed behind the two and it all starts to make sense.
Take the strain off Joe. Take the eyes off the struggle bus.
Nice.
----------------------
Maybe he will have a better time sitting and not appear to be a dementia-ridden, words-stumbling old fool
DNC Changes Debate Format to Allow Biden to Sit Instead of Stand
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), aided by CNN, appears to be changing the rules for the next Democratic presidential nominee debate again.
This time, apparently, so former vice president Joe Biden can sit down.
The most pertinent part of a POLITICO article about the Sanders and Biden camps clashing over the debate rules states:
And while the Biden camp denies pressuring the DNC and CNN to allow Joe to take a load off, the Sanders camp outwardly objected to the rule change. Team Biden did not. Usually, in the murky world of backroom political deals, this means you’re in on it.
“Why does Joe Biden not want to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. Sanders on the debate stage March 15 and have an opportunity to defend his record and articulate his vision for the future?” quipped Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders’s senior adviser.
Team Biden hit back in a predictably lame fashion: “We want to have an exchange of ideas next week in Phoenix. We look forward to taking voter questions in a town hall-style setting,” said Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield.
“It is odd to see a campaign that says it is based on revolution arguing for the status quo because ‘this is how every other debate has been done.’ Why is Sen. Sanders opposed to a little change?”
The DNC did a slightly better job making the whole thing seem legit.
“After 10 debates, the DNC worked with its network partners to adapt the March debate to the smaller field of candidates and to give voters more of a voice. This format provides candidates longer response times, and for the first time, will incorporate questions from undecided voters in the audience,” DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said.
In other words, March’s debate is designed to be seen by fewer people, with less action and more droning on.
The idea may seem counterintuitive at first, with 33 million people watching the debate before last, and 15.3 million watching the last contest in February.
Factor in that the DNC hardly wants more Americans watching its favored (almost entirely senile candidate) being torn apart by a communist with their logo affixed behind the two and it all starts to make sense.
Take the strain off Joe. Take the eyes off the struggle bus.
Nice.
----------------------
Maybe he will have a better time sitting and not appear to be a dementia-ridden, words-stumbling old fool
Just dropping this here.
IRS data show progressive plans require huge middle-class tax hikes
Last week, the IRS released its annual Statistics of Income. This much-anticipated document is exactly what it sounds like: a thorough analysis of taxpayers’ incomes and payments to the IRS, this time for 2018.
Each year, these numbers are illuminating for a number of reasons. For one thing, they show the progression of tax payments over time. For example, revenues have continued to rise since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered income tax rates for everyone. And the number of filers taking the mortgage interest deduction plummeted from 33 million in 2017 to just 13 million in 2018, as more taxpayers took advantage of the new and far more generous standard deduction.
There are also important lessons about income classes. Out of 147 million IRS tax filers in 2018, just 0.3% (about 500,000) had incomes above $1 million. These earners and families made 17% of all taxable income in 2018 (just shy of $1.5 trillion) and paid 28.6% of all income taxes. That is significantly more than they would pay in a strictly proportional system, and of course, it doesn’t count state or local income taxes or the business taxes that high earners often pay.
Meanwhile, the 85 million filers at the bottom of the pay scale faced a justly and reasonably lower tax bill. Those reporting incomes of $50,000 or less (more than half of all filers) shouldered just 5.5% of the nation’s total income tax bill.
This goes to show that the United States has a tax system that favors those with lower incomes and demands a fair share, by any reasonable definition, from millionaires and billionaires.
But it demonstrates much more than that. It also shows, once again, that there is no way, through merely raising taxes on the richest of the rich, that anyone could ever hope to fund a massive government medical system or an environmental transformation of the economy. This remains true even if you extend punitive taxation to mere quarter-million-dollar earners — the top 3.64% of filers, who reported making more than $250,000 in income in 2018. This group also paid an outsized amount in taxes — 54.71% of all income, capital gains, dividends, and self-employment taxes collected by Uncle Sam. But even this larger group made only $3.24 trillion in taxable income.
And so, even if they could be taxed at a 100% rate (an impossibility), their income would not quite cover the most conservative estimates of what "Medicare for all" would cost. In a less unrealistic scenario, in which this group’s tax payments could be raised by 10% without affecting the economy at all, the federal Treasury would gain by less than $90 billion per year — not even close to the cost of providing everybody with generous healthcare benefits, let alone the tens of trillions of dollars of additional costs associated with the Green New Deal.
The bottom line in the IRS numbers is that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is right when he says he has no idea how much his plans would cost. To be more accurate still, he really has no conception of the federal budget overall or the national tax base. His plans would require much higher taxes on middle-income and even lower-income earners. This idea of the poor paying more in taxes is, in fact, characteristic of the European social democracies that Sanders constantly extols, although he never seems to want to bring that part up.
To the extent that he concedes the middle class would have to pay more in taxes, he claims that it would be more than offset by benefits of government-run healthcare. But Emory University health finance expert Kenneth Thorpe, looking at an earlier version of the Sanders plan, found that "over 70% of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today."
Sanders’s rhetoric about the wealthy is basically just blowhard nonsense. He tries to seem knowledgeable by hiding behind discredited ideas of socialism that remain popular among academics, but he’s basically just preaching innumeracy.
IRS data show progressive plans require huge middle-class tax hikes
Last week, the IRS released its annual Statistics of Income. This much-anticipated document is exactly what it sounds like: a thorough analysis of taxpayers’ incomes and payments to the IRS, this time for 2018.
Each year, these numbers are illuminating for a number of reasons. For one thing, they show the progression of tax payments over time. For example, revenues have continued to rise since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered income tax rates for everyone. And the number of filers taking the mortgage interest deduction plummeted from 33 million in 2017 to just 13 million in 2018, as more taxpayers took advantage of the new and far more generous standard deduction.
There are also important lessons about income classes. Out of 147 million IRS tax filers in 2018, just 0.3% (about 500,000) had incomes above $1 million. These earners and families made 17% of all taxable income in 2018 (just shy of $1.5 trillion) and paid 28.6% of all income taxes. That is significantly more than they would pay in a strictly proportional system, and of course, it doesn’t count state or local income taxes or the business taxes that high earners often pay.
Meanwhile, the 85 million filers at the bottom of the pay scale faced a justly and reasonably lower tax bill. Those reporting incomes of $50,000 or less (more than half of all filers) shouldered just 5.5% of the nation’s total income tax bill.
This goes to show that the United States has a tax system that favors those with lower incomes and demands a fair share, by any reasonable definition, from millionaires and billionaires.
But it demonstrates much more than that. It also shows, once again, that there is no way, through merely raising taxes on the richest of the rich, that anyone could ever hope to fund a massive government medical system or an environmental transformation of the economy. This remains true even if you extend punitive taxation to mere quarter-million-dollar earners — the top 3.64% of filers, who reported making more than $250,000 in income in 2018. This group also paid an outsized amount in taxes — 54.71% of all income, capital gains, dividends, and self-employment taxes collected by Uncle Sam. But even this larger group made only $3.24 trillion in taxable income.
And so, even if they could be taxed at a 100% rate (an impossibility), their income would not quite cover the most conservative estimates of what "Medicare for all" would cost. In a less unrealistic scenario, in which this group’s tax payments could be raised by 10% without affecting the economy at all, the federal Treasury would gain by less than $90 billion per year — not even close to the cost of providing everybody with generous healthcare benefits, let alone the tens of trillions of dollars of additional costs associated with the Green New Deal.
The bottom line in the IRS numbers is that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is right when he says he has no idea how much his plans would cost. To be more accurate still, he really has no conception of the federal budget overall or the national tax base. His plans would require much higher taxes on middle-income and even lower-income earners. This idea of the poor paying more in taxes is, in fact, characteristic of the European social democracies that Sanders constantly extols, although he never seems to want to bring that part up.
To the extent that he concedes the middle class would have to pay more in taxes, he claims that it would be more than offset by benefits of government-run healthcare. But Emory University health finance expert Kenneth Thorpe, looking at an earlier version of the Sanders plan, found that "over 70% of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single-payer plan than they do for health insurance today."
Sanders’s rhetoric about the wealthy is basically just blowhard nonsense. He tries to seem knowledgeable by hiding behind discredited ideas of socialism that remain popular among academics, but he’s basically just preaching innumeracy.
Highlights of your 2020 Democrat hopefuls, enjoy:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Take a stroll down memory lane with the CRINGIEST campaign moments so far. <br><br>Let us know your top pick so we can declare a Champion of Campaign Cringe!” <a href="https://t.co/VsjpITK4GJ">https://t.co/VsjpITK4GJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/A0LAqhe1LS">pic.twitter.com/A0LAqhe1LS</a></p>— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1236078896820260864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Take a stroll down memory lane with the CRINGIEST campaign moments so far. <br><br>Let us know your top pick so we can declare a Champion of Campaign Cringe!” <a href="https://t.co/VsjpITK4GJ">https://t.co/VsjpITK4GJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/A0LAqhe1LS">pic.twitter.com/A0LAqhe1LS</a></p>— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1236078896820260864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 6, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That was hysterical. Hahaha. To honor Elfie, watching this parade of Democratic candidates bumble and stumble through the primaries has been nothing short of a clown car wreck.
Besides Biden's gaffes, I think Swalwell's "I will be bold! Without the bold." did it for me.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
It's over, Biden wins in a landslide
538 projection of pledged delegates for Biden: 2343
Biden's 40 points over Sanders on electability, uniting country, handling major crisis
New Michigan poll (Monmouth): Biden 51 (+15), Sanders 36
538 projection of pledged delegates for Biden: 2343
Biden's 40 points over Sanders on electability, uniting country, handling major crisis
New Michigan poll (Monmouth): Biden 51 (+15), Sanders 36
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
They will ALL hate Trump more, count on it, no protest vote this time
Similar threads
