2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
giphy.gif
 
Apparently there's an open letter from a former Trump aid that basically says what many of us expected; the plan was never for him to get this far but his ego has taken over. How much of an actual "insider" is now in question but her assessment, though it took her too long, is spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
We've heard this a few times though. Not disputing it, but seems like it would make bigger news than it does.

The bigger joke is on us for allowing it to get to this point. Though one could argue that it just shows the need for a change in politics.

Just not this extreme
 
deep said:
Census won't matter that much Dems are too stupid to get the govnorships and legislators to control the gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Those should be controlled mostly by people elected in mid-term and off-year elections in 2018 and 2019, so you're probably right. At least the tide will have shifted a bit with ten more years of Republicans dying off...

I find it baffling that there's so many states that vote for their state-wide candidates in mid-term and, especially, off-year elections. It's like the entire friggin' process is gamed so that Republicans can hold onto power for as long as possible. The fair way would be a single election every four years. Senate and House terms are four years, state-wide seats are four years, Governorships are four years...we'd have blue control all over this country. You'd have to be a total idiot to think that people voting in some state's odd year election where turnout is 18% has any bearing on public sentiment.
 
BVS said:
Apparently there's an open letter from a former Trump aid that basically says what many of us expected; the plan was never for him to get this far but his ego has taken over. How much of an actual "insider" is now in question but her assessment, though it took her too long, is spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

It's a giant circle that shows how fucked we actually are.

Trump has run before, pretty much as a goof to get ratings and promote his brand. But this time he actually gains traction, so he sticks with it for shits and giggles.

People call out his supporters for not realizing how stupid it is to support what is essentially a gag candidate, which has the reverse effect of emboldening them and making his support grow. Rinse, repeat.
 
I just had a little bit of a wild thought... about the 1992 election what with Bush/Clinton/Perot, and the similarity to today's potential Cruz/Clinton/Trump matchup, were the Donald to be jettisoned by the potential contested republican convention.

So, I was born in 1992. I merely know of Perot's existence, and some of the political positions he took (in some sense, he and Trump share similar economic populist positions). But, I can only assume the relationship between Bush and Perot was far more sour than the relationship between Perot and Clinton. Probably because Bush knew Perot was stopping any chance he had at reelection. Similar to what would happen were Trump to run independent.

Now, there's the early conceived notion that Trump was a Clinton plant. It just makes me think... if that were legitimately true, what about Perot? Was that just the learning example, or in some way could Ross Perot have been running knowing he would throw the race? And, does that mean we are likely to see Trump in 2020, if he so chooses to run independent? The question about Perot is mostly because I don't really have an understanding of the dynamic of that race, as a 92 baby.
 
I believe Perot was a legit candidate, not there to upset the apple cart and hand the election (erection) to Bill Clinton.
He ran based almost purely on an economic platform, the prosperous economy under Ronny Ray Gun had quickly fizzled under Papa Bush and Perot claimed to be able to set things straight.

Clinton that year was the first "cool" presidential candidate in my lifetime (probably what JFK was to folks a generation before), he played saxophone on Arsenioe Hall's show, did an interview with Tabitha Soren on MTV where the minx asked him "boxers or briefs". He probably would have beaten Bush without Perot in there, but Perot's candidacy definitely hurt Bush more. But I believe Perot ran believing he had a shot (he got almost 20% of the popular vote) and not to undermine Bush.

Imagine if somehow Jeb had emerged as the GOP frontrunner this year, and was facing Hillary in November and Trump entered as a 3rd party candidate. It would be like waking up to "I Got You Babe" on the clock radio all over again.
dont-drive-angry.jpg
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
I just had a little bit of a wild thought... about the 1992 election what with Bush/Clinton/Perot, and the similarity to today's potential Cruz/Clinton/Trump matchup, were the Donald to be jettisoned by the potential contested republican convention.

So, I was born in 1992. I merely know of Perot's existence, and some of the political positions he took (in some sense, he and Trump share similar economic populist positions). But, I can only assume the relationship between Bush and Perot was far more sour than the relationship between Perot and Clinton. Probably because Bush knew Perot was stopping any chance he had at reelection. Similar to what would happen were Trump to run independent.

Now, there's the early conceived notion that Trump was a Clinton plant. It just makes me think... if that were legitimately true, what about Perot? Was that just the learning example, or in some way could Ross Perot have been running knowing he would throw the race? And, does that mean we are likely to see Trump in 2020, if he so chooses to run independent? The question about Perot is mostly because I don't really have an understanding of the dynamic of that race, as a 92 baby.
Click to expand...



The best way to learn about Perot is to watch Dana Carvey's impersonations of him on old SNLs.
 
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
 
Ahhh. Perot. That was the first election I really paid attention as I was in high school. I remember Perot bought time on broadcast TV to talk about his plan, which included his iconic pie charts. The Dana Carvey impersonation was hilarious and spot on.

The Democratic primary was a mess, and somehow Clinton emerged. He had a sex scandal but his intense charisma won people over.
He hammered Bush on the "no new taxes" pledge that was broken.
The thing is, Perot was a serious candidate. He had an actual plan and wasn't running on fear.

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app
 
anitram said:
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
Click to expand...




Exactly right.
 
anitram said:
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have possibly said it better... And you described almost the exact same situation we're in, only we still rent because we can't afford 20% down on an apartment in a good neighborhood that wouldn't add an hour to each of our commutes, cause new york.

We do pay $24,000 a year for daycare, though. For three days a week of daycare, I should add... which equates to roughly two years of SUNY college tuition, and/or roughly the amount of added tax we would have to pay under Sanders plan.

So yea... fuck Bernie.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:
Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
Click to expand...

Someone like Romney (with no payroll income) is harder to target because he has trusts set up. He only pays something like 14% in tax. Sanders does want to tax capital gains at a lot higher rate, but the wealthy still have a lot more ways to evade taxes. They would have to really overhaul the tax system to go after people like him.
 
Tax increases or not, I think the real issue still ought to be that income has stagnated over the last 3-4 decades. The cost of everything has gone way up, but income has not kept pace. Median U.S. income is $52,000, and I just read something that said that if it had kept come with the economy all these years, it would be between $90-100,000 instead. Same with the minimum wage. A 1950 minimum wage for one year was enough to buy a new - not used, new - car, while a minimum wage today would cover half the average cost of a new car.

We always talk about how tax rates were so high in the 50s and 60s, but maybe those rates hurt less then because the income you were left with could buy a lot more than it would now.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
We do pay $24,000 a year for daycare, though. For three days a week of daycare, I should add... which equates to roughly two years of SUNY college tuition, and/or roughly the amount of added tax we would have to pay under Sanders plan.
Click to expand...

Brutal, it's $2,100 here per month (I'm still on mat leave but that's what it would be for a 12 month old when I go back). I don't even know if that's doable, not in terms of $ but pick ups/drop offs, our schedules are so erratic I may end up forced into a nanny situation. I've priced that out, if you're doing it above board (i.e. declaring everything, paying into her EI, etc) it's about $40-45K/year for a non-live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
womanfish
**Political Junkies** 2020 US Election Predictions
Replies
1
Views
611
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
T
  • Locked
The End is Nigh: US Presidential Election Thread Part XVI
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
43K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
Axver
  • Locked
2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
38K
BEAL
BEAL
Oregoropa
  • Poll
US Presidential Election Poll
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom