Supreme court nomination

[billvon 2,380]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

Evidence is not being not ignored, because there isn’t any.

But there's a blind guy that saw Hunter Biden drop off either one or three laptops!  Then the FBI came and took them but he forgot who exactly took them or what they said or anything.  That's 100% legal proof right there.

And his surveillance system just happened to not be working so there's no video.  That's HARD PROOF that the Dems erased it!

And there are witnesses!  Fraudster Steve Bannon saw . . .well he didn't see anything but he says it must be true.  And Rudy Giuliani, who the CIA warned months ago was going to be a target for Russian disinformation, also says it's true and that it's totally not Russian misinformation!

That's THREE smoking guns.

[jakee 1,254]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

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 

What does fair share have to do with the subject of the tax burden on the middle class?

 

The percentage being paid by the ever increasingly wealthy top 1% isn't a burden since they are, as you so eloquently put it, still rich enough to hoard their billions like Scrooge McDuck.

[kallend 1,620]

4 hours ago, 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?

Did you forget that the House sent a bill to the Senate back in May, and Moscow Mitch never even brought it up.  Then last week T said he wouldn't negotiate.

It's surprising you haven't developed vertigo from all the spinning you have to do to blame Pelosi for Trump's shortcomings.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

What does fair share have to do with the subject of the tax burden on the middle class?

 

The percentage being paid by the ever increasingly wealthy top 1% isn't a burden since they are, as you so eloquently put it, still rich enough to hoard their billions like Scrooge McDuck.

Yep, they hoard their money and spend it all on hookers and blow....or Spacex, Tesla, Blue Origin, the Gates Foundation, et al.

[kallend 1,620]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

But there's a blind guy that saw Hunter Biden drop off either one or three laptops!  Then the FBI came and took them but he forgot who exactly took them or what they said or anything.  That's 100% legal proof right there.

And his surveillance system just happened to not be working so there's no video.  That's HARD PROOF that the Dems erased it!

And there are witnesses!  Fraudster Steve Bannon saw . . .well he didn't see anything but he says it must be true.  And Rudy Giuliani, who the CIA warned months ago was going to be a target for Russian disinformation, also says it's true and that it's totally not Russian misinformation!

That's THREE smoking guns.

Would that be the same Rudy G. who was duped by Borat?

[SkyDekker 1,120]

Never mind that in the last couple of decades there has been a wealth transfer of roughly $50 trillion fomr the lower 90% to the upper 1%.

If the income distribution stayed the same from the 3 decades after WWII, every single worker in the bottom 90% would be making $1,114 more per month, every single month, every year......

[ryoder 1,380]

5 minutes ago, kallend said:

Would that be the same Rudy G. who was duped by Borat?

Well, it's the CIA's fault for not telling him he was being targeted by Borat!

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/20/2020 at 12:17 PM, phantomII said:

Like in 2016.
Now, explain again, why it is not a powergrabbing charade by the Republicans.

That's simple.

Its not a power grabbing charade now because the liberals aren't the ones in power.

If the liberals were in power, and it was their appointee, most here wouldn't see issue with it.

Then - it would be a power grab.

Edited October 22, 2020 by turtlespeed

[Coreece 189]

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

10 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

  Maybe it wouldn't affect voter turnout - hard to say.  I don't have any anecdotes to offer, but I did a quick selectively biased google search and found an NPR link that might help:

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state

"because of the United States' peculiar electoral college system, in which the winner takes all the electoral votes in all but two states, all the California Trump votes and West Virginia Clinton votes didn't really matter much. So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.

The data suggest this may be happening. Of 15 states that NPR labeled as battlegrounds or leaning states in its final battleground map, 12 had turnout rates above the national rate — 58.4 percent of the voting-eligible population. . ."

 

"research shows that people tend to turn out when they have had contact about voting, whether it's via mail or phone or in person. . ."

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

  Maybe it wouldn't affect voter turnout - hard to say.  I don't have any anecdotes to offer, but I did a quick selectively biased google search and found an NPR link that might help:

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state

"because of the United States' peculiar electoral college system, in which the winner takes all the electoral votes in all but two states, all the California Trump votes and West Virginia Clinton votes didn't really matter much. So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.

The data suggest this may be happening. Of 15 states that NPR labeled as battlegrounds or leaning states in its final battleground map, 12 had turnout rates above the national rate — 58.4 percent of the voting-eligible population. . ."

 

"research shows that people tend to turn out when they have had contact about voting, whether it's via mail or phone or in person. . ."

 

Hi Coreece,

'So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.'

'The data suggest this may be happening.'

So much for your links.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[wmw999 2,116]

36 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That's simple.

Its not a power grabbing charade now because the liberals aren't the ones in power.

If the liberals were in power, and it was their appointee, most here wouldn't see issue with it.

Then - it would be a power grab.

So it's not a power grabbing charade because it's an actual power grab, is that your contention?

Wendy P.

[wmw999 2,116]

8 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Coreece,

'So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.'

'The data suggest this may be happening.'

So much for your links.

Jerry Baumchen

 

He made it pretty clear it was a quick and dirty.

Wendy P.

[Coreece 189]

3 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Maybe it wouldn't affect voter turnout - hard to say.  I don't have any anecdotes to offer, but I did a quick selectively biased google search and found an NPR link that might help:

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state

"because of the United States' peculiar electoral college system, in which the winner takes all the electoral votes in all but two states, all the California Trump votes and West Virginia Clinton votes didn't really matter much. So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.

The data suggest this may be happening. Of 15 states that NPR labeled as battlegrounds or leaning states in its final battleground map, 12 had turnout rates above the national rate — 58.4 percent of the voting-eligible population. . ."

 

"research shows that people tend to turn out when they have had contact about voting, whether it's via mail or phone or in person. . ."

 

Hi Coreece,

'So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.'

'The data suggest this may be happening.'

So much for your links.

It's still a 1-up on your anecdote.  It may or may not be causal, but it's not unreasonable to think there may be a relationship there.

The point is that there are 100+ million eligible voters that simply don't vote whether registered or not.   With a popular vote they would all equally be up for grabs to whichever side wants/needs them the most and without concentrating all their effort/resources in battleground states.

[Coreece 189]

29 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

38 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Coreece,

'So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.'

'The data suggest this may be happening.'

So much for your links.

Jerry Baumchen

 

He made it pretty clear it was a quick and dirty.

Wendy P.

He doesn't care, this is just what he does.  I'm used to it.

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

The point is that there are 100+ million eligible voters that simply don't vote whether registered or not.   With a popular vote they would all equally be up for grabs to whichever side wants/needs them the most and without concentrating all their effort/resources in battleground states.

I agree with your assessment that a change to pop-vote would change the dynamic, but I don't think it would have much of a swing in terms of party-support % amongst the population.

Even if it did suddenly bring some massive groundswell of previously hidden conservative support, I still think it would be better than the wildly contorted system that is the EC. It would at least be an accurate assessment of the will of the people. Right now Republicans get two bites of the apple - one from the EC giving a disproportionate weighting to lower-populated states that lean red, and a second bite from the rules governing Senators per state that also tips the scales unevenly. I'd potentially be onboard with leaving the EC untouched if it could be rebalanced against the Senate issue.

Also though, you guys desperately need ranked run-off voting to escape the 2-party system. My most commonly picked party is the biggest of the independents here, but at least I know I still get to preference which of the big two gets my vote if/when my preference doesn't win.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yep, they hoard their money and spend it all on hookers and blow....or Spacex, Tesla, Blue Origin, the Gates Foundation, et al.

A few of them do. Most of them can't be bothered. It is a genuine problem that rich people are so rich that not only is it impossible for them to spend most of their money, it's too much work to even invest it either. It just sits there in their vast, virtual Scrooge McDuck caves doing absolutely nothing.

BTW, interesting that you choose Tesla who you always slam as being government subsidised and SpaceX, who get most of their money from govenrment contracts, as being examples of why not to tax rich people more.

[ryoder 1,380]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

A few of them do. Most of them can't be bothered. It is a genuine problem that rich people are so rich that not only is it impossible for them to spend most of their money, it's too much work to even invest it either. It just sits there in their vast, virtual Scrooge McDuck caves doing absolutely nothing.

 

How difficult can it be to just drop it into an S&P500 index fund, e.g. VFINX?

 

[kallend 1,620]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

How difficult can it be to just drop it into an S&P500 index fund, e.g. VFINX?

 

Wouldn't that be difficult from a secret account in the Cayman Islands?

[kallend 1,620]

 Senators likely to vote for Barrett represent 156.6 million Americans, while senators likely to vote against her nomination represent 170.9 million Americans, about 14.3 million more.

[turtlespeed 212]

On 10/21/2020 at 9:05 PM, wmw999 said:

So it's not a power grabbing charade because it's an actual power grab, is that your contention?

Wendy P.

I'm saying that it is only a power grab depending on where you politically align.

If the roles and situations were reversed, the same people screaming about it being a power grab now, would not be the ones saying it IS a power grab. They would be saying that it is needed to be filled immediately.

[kallend 1,620]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm saying that it is only a power grab depending on where you politically align.

If the roles and situations were reversed, the same people screaming about it being a power grab now, would not be the ones saying it IS a power grab. They would be saying that it is needed to be filled immediately.

Hard to decide whether power grabbing is worse than pussy grabbing.  Either way, it seems to be a GOP thing.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

If the roles and situations were reversed, the same people screaming about it being a power grab now, would not be the ones saying it IS a power grab. 

See, but the thing is, the last time this happened, republicans swore up and down "this is NOT a power grab.  If the roles were reversed I'd do exactly the same thing - wait for the next president."  Lindsey Graham said that “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

So no, I don't buy that premise.  It's not a case of "well, they didn't think about that, and so of course they did what the other side did."  They DID think about that, and made a promise to not be hypocrites.  And then, of course, they went back on their promise.

And you support them for doing that.  Amazing.  I imagine there is nothing a republican could do that would result in you not supporting them.  Rape?  Sexual assault?  No worries; you still support Trump.  Murder?  Trump says his supporters wouldn't care - and I have no doubt you wouldn't either.  Supporting a pedophile madam?  Sure, you may say you have an issue with that, but heck yes you still support him.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm saying that it is only a power grab depending on where you politically align.

If the roles and situations were reversed, the same people screaming about it being a power grab now, would not be the ones saying it IS a power grab. They would be saying that it is needed to be filled immediately.

Every single fucking time you do this.

If the situations were reversed, if it was the democrats, if the left were the ones being power obsessed hypocrites... but they're not. It's still the Republicans doing it. It's always the repulicans doing it, and every time you resort to 'if...' it means you can't defend what they're actually doing.

[brenthutch 383]

12 hours ago, kallend said:

 Senators likely to vote for Barrett represent 156.6 million Americans, while senators likely to vote against her nomination represent 170.9 million Americans, about 14.3 million more.

All of that plus a bag of chips, gets you Associate Justice Barrett.
 It is amazing, given how long you have lived in this country, that you still have no clue about our system of government.

Not that it even matters, the majority of citizens want her confirmed. (The same could not be said of Justice Kagan)

Edited October 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,116]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not that it even matters, the majority of citizens want her confirmed. (The same could not be said of Justice Kagan)

What do you base that statement on?

Wendy P.