1 1
billeisele

Supreme court nomination

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of income tax the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%. The lower 17% did not only pay zero income tax, they got $65 billion in earned income tax credit handouts.  Please explain just how this “shift” occurred.  It was globalization and open boarders that demolished the lower and middle class not tax policy.

You post the statistic as if it has any relevance to, let alone support for, your 'explanation'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Don’t forget Crackhead Hunter 

Why should we not forget him? Unlike the culpable members of the Trump clan he will not help run the election campaign, he will not be offered a nepotistic position in the White House, he will not oversee a fraudulent charity on behalf of the president, and he will not be a director of the President's businesses.

Edited by jakee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but if Clinton didn't win the popular vote I doubt we'd even be talking about this right now.  If the dems think it's better, it's only because they think it'll be easier to win - it's "fairness" is only a selling point.

A) Doesn't matter if some Dems think it's better because it helps them. If it's fairer it's fairer.

Republicans bring this out all the time, like with Puerto Rico for instance. 'Dems only want Puerto Rico to have the vote because it helps them, not because it's the right thing to do'. But it is the right thing to do, and Reps only oppose it because it will hurt them. When right and wrong become a partisan issue, right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The side that is wrong doesn't get to win by pointing out that the side who are right are also in line for a partisan advantage.

B ) We've been talking about it here long before the 2016 election, so you are simply wrong to doubt.

Quote

 On the other hand, I can see how a popular vote would not only encourage a better turnout, but also encourage candidates to appeal to a broader base.  A popular vote would make it worth while to grind out votes in every state if needed, rather than just a few select regions.

So you disagree with every Republican argument against the popular vote. You think the popular vote will encourage better turnout, better campaigning and fairer representation... but you are against it because it will be easier for Democrats to win?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jakee said:

Why should we not forget him? Unlike the culpable members of the Trump clan he will not help run the election campaign, he will not be offered a nepotistic position in the White House, he will not oversee a fraudulent charity on behalf of the president, and he will not be a director of the President's businesses.

What are you talking about, he was flying Around on AF2 and cutting pay-to-play deals with his dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, SkyDekker said:
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

I think my wording may've been a bit unclear.  I wasn't referring to an accurate vote count, just an accurate estimate of conservative vs progressives/liberals.

A popular vote would obviously change the dynamics of the election, so I just think it would be a bit misguided to use 2016 as a reliable indicator of what it would look like were the EC eliminated.

Why do you think it would change how people vote?

It would change how many people vote.  If suddenly one felt that their vote would actually count they'd likely be more inclined to vote, especially if candidates were actively seeking and asking for their votes in states that they would've typically avoided under the EC.

The question I'm asking is which way do these new potential voters lean?  Let's say that there are a million people in the mountains of Cali that never vote but identify with conservative ideology.  A popular vote would then incentivize republicans to mine them out.  In addition to that, let's say millions more conservatives came out of the woodwork (similar to white supremacists when Obama was president) and dominated the elections for the next 50 years?  Would you still be ok with it?  Would the dems still be ok with it's "fairness" and graciously accept defeat - maybe chalk it up as just another "unintended consequence?" 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jakee said:

You think the popular vote will encourage better turnout, better campaigning and fairer representation... but you are against it because it will be easier for Democrats to win?

I'm not strongly against either. 

I like the EC simply because it's hasn't been one-sided. 

I like the popular vote for the reasons listed above, along with the possibility that it might discourage an appeal to radicalism on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the part about discouraging the appeal to radicalism. There are lots of states (and even counties) where the districts are so gerrymandered that it really didn't matter who you voted for (as was the case for me in Texas, and is the case for many conservatives in Massachusetts).

As long as we have this "identify and mine the divide" attitude in politics, things can improve, but not all that much. We all have to remember that the "worst" racist reprobate, and the "worst" leftie name calling demonstrator, are still Americans, and still have more in common with us than not.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I like the part about discouraging the appeal to radicalism.

To be clear tho, that's just a thought that popped in my head - not sure if it's wishful thinking or not.  I haven't read any thing supporting that idea nor anything suggesting that would be the case.  But it's nice to think about a system that might actually help unite the country by focusing on issues that appeal to voters as broadly as possible, especially as wedge issues weather away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I'm not strongly against either. 

I like the EC simply because it's hasn't been one-sided. 

I like the popular vote for the reasons listed above, along with the possibility that it might discourage an appeal to radicalism on both sides.

Great. Right now the Republican Party is a dog being wagged by its extremist tail. If it the became less radical it would be better equipped to compete for the popular vote. I fail to see how any of this is not a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moscow Mitch has admitted that getting a stimulus bill passed to assist millions of Americans is of less importance than rushing ACB's nomination through the Senate before any election related issues come before SCOTUS.

 

Bananas come to mind in our republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of income tax the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%

Yep.  However, above a certain point, the more money you make the LESS you pay in taxes.  Trump is just one example.  This is an attempt to shift the tax burden from the very rich to the middle class, and is spearheaded by the richest people in the US (not surprisingly.)  Trump's tax cut is just the latest attempt to remove tax burdens from the richest Americans.


 

richest.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coreece said:

It would change how many people vote.  If suddenly one felt that their vote would actually count they'd likely be more inclined to vote, especially if candidates were actively seeking and asking for their votes in states that they would've typically avoided under the EC.

Hi Coreece,

I really doubt this.  When I voted last week, I voted for a POTUS + US senator, a US Congresswoman, a state Sec of State, a state Treasurer, a local mayor, a couple of city council critters, four ballot measures, and a lot more that I do not remember.

If there was only a vote for POTUS on the ballot, you might be right.  I have never voted when only a vote for POTUS was the only thing on the ballot.

Lots of reasons to be voting, voting for POTUS is only one of many.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Coreece,

I really doubt this.  When I voted last week, I voted for a POTUS + US senator, a US Congresswoman, a state Sec of State, a state Treasurer, a local mayor, a couple of city council critters, four ballot measures, and a lot more that I do not remember.

If there was only a vote for POTUS on the ballot, you might be right.  I have never voted when only a vote for POTUS was the only thing on the ballot.

Lots of reasons to be voting, voting for POTUS is only one of many.

Jerry Baumchen

My ballot went on for 2 long pages this year:

https://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/35951/2020-Broomfield-Sample-Ballot-Eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kallend said:

Moscow Mitch has admitted that getting a stimulus bill passed to assist millions of Americans is of less importance than rushing ACB's nomination through the Senate before any election related issues come before SCOTUS.

 

Bananas come to mind in our republic.

With Pelosi taking her ball and going home until after the election, there is not much else on his plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billvon said:

No reason, really, to stay, when Trump says that there will be no stimulus bill until after he wins.  What's the point?

The point is that he can blame Pelosi & the Ds for taking Trump & McConnell at their word.
After she goes, both of them will pretend that they really wanted to push a stimulus through, but Pelosi left.

Funny how he's ignoring Jakee's request for any sort of evidence that Biden's son was doing 'pay for play' during the Obama administration.

Does he really think that if there was any real proof of that, that the Rs wouldn't be screaming it from the roof tops?
Instead we have Giuliani & Bannon parroting Russian propaganda, now to include accusations of child porn.

Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

With Pelosi taking her ball and going home until after the election, there is not much else on his plate.

Donald Trump literally declares to the entire country that he was doing exactly that..... but it’s Pelosi’s fault? You guys are delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 hours ago, jakee said:

You post the statistic as if it has any relevance to, let alone support for, your 'explanation'.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

  • The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)

I would say that is a fair share 

Edited by brenthutch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1