i guess you've conceded your position on seeking out the racist vote?

8/2/2019 3:17:03 PM

Quote :

"have you tried looking at all? "

Show me the actual numbers of where the money comes from and who pays what. Not, "you save this much" and "we are gonna tax the money stashed in the Caribbean and Luxembourg!"

8/2/2019 3:17:29 PM

did you read the link? they use values

8/2/2019 3:18:04 PM

i dont think a gun nut gets to call anyone racist but i might be mistaken.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:20 PM. Reason : bulk ammo equals gun nut]

8/2/2019 3:20:06 PM

did you read my post?

They are using the same math tricks that every candidate does. They are using "money you save" because that is a relative term.

When it comes to taxes, it's the absolute numbers that matter. This is why they talked about taxing money stashed away.

Like I said, good luck with that.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:20 PM. Reason : h]

8/2/2019 3:20:11 PM

they show actual numbers and revenue

8/2/2019 3:21:50 PM

Quote :

"i guess you've conceded your position on seeking out the racist vote?"

I'm not conceding anything, you hypocritical NRA apologist. The left doesn't need nor want your gun nutter vote anyway. You're a lost cause, and I think the rest of us progressives should just ignore you from now on.



[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2019 3:22:47 PM

dude banjoman stand up for yourself. you might be a fried pie but youve got like 4x the education DTR does.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:23 PM. Reason : dont let some BA holding printer networker condescend to you]

8/2/2019 3:23:04 PM

we in the biz call them multi-function work centers, not printers

Quote :

"I'm not conceding anything, you hypocritical NRA apologist."

lol, okay



[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:27 PM. Reason : you "not all racists are bad" apologist?]

8/2/2019 3:24:54 PM

the problem is that there is no way to implement a M4A plan without getting huge amounts of revenue from the wealthy. That's just not gonna happen in the US. That is why everybody is dancing around that topic.

8/2/2019 3:30:17 PM

you think they have been dancing around increasing taxes for the rich?

8/2/2019 3:31:14 PM

troll or beyond naive

8/2/2019 3:33:17 PM

you also think they're dancing around raising taxes on the rich?

8/2/2019 3:36:30 PM

you think there are enough wealthy democrats to bankroll M4A? better yet do you think there are enough wealthy democrats behind a candidate supporting it to even get it on the floor?

better yet can a liberal owning thousands of rounds of ammo just be marginalized here like Earl?

(ive been lurking for a long time)

8/2/2019 3:40:14 PM

Saying, "we are gonna institute a tax on the wealthy" is just political talk. Show me exactly where the numbers (money) are coming from. That is what they are dancing around.

It is interesting because his proposed health care plan is very similar to the German system in regards to dental, emergency care, and deductibles.

They impose a flat tax. I would be in favor of this option, however, their socioeconomic class systems are structured much different than ours.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:44 PM. Reason : d]

8/2/2019 3:41:36 PM

so you are in favor of a more regressive flat tax, but not a progressive tax? is your objection that you think progressive taxes are unfair?

and it's not just political talk, I linked a document that has options with details on how it can be paid for, not just soundbites

8/2/2019 3:43:40 PM

No, I am saying that in order to fund it, you are gonna need the equivalent of a flat tax more or less.

7% tax on 1 mil puts more bucks in the pot than 7% tax on 150,000.

The wealthy are gonna have to contribute much more in Texa$ no matter how you look at it, and I seriously don't see that ever happening in this country. Again, it works in the western block because their social classes are structured much differnet than ours.

that document is just a copy paste of literally what every liberal candidate has ever said about universal health care.

They are not showing you the actual numbers for a reason.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:49 PM. Reason : f]

8/2/2019 3:45:40 PM

what do you mean by actual numbers? because they have numbers in the document, what are you looking for?


are you against progressive taxes in general, or just in regards to paying for healthcare? would you agree or disagree with the statement that flat taxes are regressive?

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2019 3:47:21 PM

not to be a dick, but

Quote :

"No, I am saying that in order to fund it, you are gonna need the equivalent of a flat tax more or less. 7% tax on 1 mil puts more bucks in the pot than 7% tax on 150,000. The wealthy are gonna have to contribute much more in Texa$ no matter how you look at it, and I seriously don't see that ever happening in this country. Again, it works in the western block because their social classes are structured much differnet than ours."

Show me the exact numbers and plans to get the money for M4A. Saying things like "taxing money stashed abroad" or "instituting a tax on the wealthy" is political talk for "we are not sure yet, or don't want to tell you exactly where the money is coming from"

8/2/2019 3:52:44 PM

without clicking the document are there any citations or CBO projections etc?

is it just campaign fodder?

8/2/2019 3:53:46 PM

^^Employers pay 7.5% - $3.9 trillion
Households pay 4% - $3.5 trillion
tax breaks that subsidize health care go away because healthcare is single payer - $4.2 trillion saved
Make the personal income tax more progressive. 40% on $25k-$500k, 45% on $500k-$2M, 50% on $2M to $10M, 52% top bracket. capital gains taxes no longer stop at $250k. itemized deductions capped at 28% for households making over $250k. - $1.8 trillion
etc...

i just pulled those straight from the link, it goes on like that for rest

for the offshore part, it says to pay a one time tax based on what they owe under current corporate law ($2.6 trillion is identified)

^
CBO won't analyze Sanders' bill, they only have a generic report about M4A that doesn't even get into taxes or payments. it would be good if they did review, if there is a dem congress and/or president they might.


[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 4:21 PM. Reason : unless I'm mistaken about the CBO projection, but i think they said they wouldn't review sanders bil]

8/2/2019 3:59:48 PM

hate to break it to you but "employers" dont pay shit if they deem it unreasonable. employees do.

also you have to be fucking insane to have a 40% bracket start at 25k. again without clicking the document i hope that was just your typo.

8/2/2019 4:08:49 PM

I just read through all that, jesus

Lol that this brought out two new aliases and banjo

8/2/2019 4:16:22 PM

^^sorry, typo, that should have been $250k

and yes, what employers pay is what otherwise would go to you (ideally in a perfect world where workers have good leverage), so it's really you paying. In 2016 the average employer cost is $12,865 which is more than 7.5% for anyone earning less than $171K



[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2019 4:17:39 PM

I have a good potential solution for everyone

TALK MORE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
https://twitter.com/JayInslee/status/1157332253476659200?s=19

8/2/2019 4:39:59 PM

im not an alias im a converted lurker. also i figured the typo was just DTR thinking about how many rounds of ammo he owns

otherwise that sounds all well and good for campaign fodder. hopefully sanders gets a chance to market it to moderates without calling them stupid fuckers.

[Edited on August 2, 2019 at 4:48 PM. Reason : or maybe cardi b can do it for him]

8/2/2019 4:41:13 PM

it will be a challenge keeping the momentum alive until the next democratic congress, but support is gaining

8/2/2019 4:51:26 PM

This thread went way off the rails the last couple of pages.

8/2/2019 9:03:41 PM

New people are showing up?

8/2/2019 9:06:48 PM

Yea, real gems too



Heard Hickenlooper might be going Colorado senate

8/2/2019 9:22:25 PM

I think we made a lot of progress.

8/2/2019 10:01:04 PM

lol at this thread producing two new aliases today.

qntmoverlord should cut Guth into the action.

8/2/2019 11:23:57 PM

i had no problem with warren's no nuclear first use comment but thought this was a good twitter thread about some of the nuance

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1157447371653111808

Quote :

" Okay. Those of you who want an explainer about why Elizabeth Warren's answer on #nuclear weapons wasn't crazy - and is basically a restatement of current U.S. policy - here it comes. Those of you who think Liz Cheney is right, I can't help you. /1 So, Warren said she would not use U.S. nuclear weapons preemptively. This is a word that's not as obvious as it seems. But to understand this, you need to understand "first use" and "first strike" and "no first use." That requires a quick trip back to the Cold War. /2 During the "missile age," post-1960, the question was: "When is it okay to fire your missiles in retaliation for an attack on yourself?" The problem is that if you go too soon, you might be jumping the gun on just a warning, but if you go too late...well, you're too late. /3 There were three and a half options here (quick Twitter versions): 1. Preemption (fire before the other guy; only suckers wait) 2. Launch on Warning (high certainty enemy attack procedures are in motion) 2.5 Launch Under Attack (evidence that enemy strikes are happening) /4 The Pentagon used "on warning/under attack" interchangeably, but they're different. We won't cover that here, except to say that "on warning" is basically an itchy trigger finger in the IMMEDIATE pre-war environment, not a discretionary preemption from a standstill. /5 There's a third, tough-guy option sometimes called Ride Out: waiting for the other guy's attack to finish and then firing. This was a theoretical idea meant to curb escalation to cities. Not really anyone's choice in World War III vs the USSR. /6 None of this is a "first-strike," which is basically just firing first not because the other guy is about to go, but because you think it's to your advantage. That's not been U.S. policy since we dumped "Massive Retaliation" after the Eisenhower administration. /7 (And even Eisenhower didn't believe in that, it turns out.) /8 Now, "first use" is another matter. We assumed that in a war in Europe against the USSR, we'd lose. We were outnumbered and outgunned. So we said: "We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first," meaning "in Europe against your tanks." Not "nuke Moscow instantly." /9 We hoped the Soviets understood us. They'd use nukes too, it would escalate to a theater nuclear war in Europe, and eventually, to ...New York and Moscow. Gone. So, the Soviets would behave, because even if they win, they lose. /10 That was a strategy of desperation, and it is the reason we've never embraced "no first use." We still have this 1968 hangover about losing a war in Europe, with the Soviets giving us the finger from Calais in just a week or two. /11 Anyway, back to the strategic picture: Our nuclear strategy after the early 1960s was predicated on such a war already being underway. We assumed that some regional conflict would bring us to a nuclear showdown. and we have to make a go/no-go decision. /12 Our answer was launch on warning: Once we thought enemy attack was in process, we'd launch quickly to catch as much of their stuff on the ground as possible. This was called, for years, a strategy of "damage-limitation," not "preemption" and certainly not a first strike. /13 "Preemptive attack" is the thing you do *before* launch on warning. That is, you just don't like what you see, as the other guy goes to alert and [very Gene Hackman voice] STARTS FUELING HIS MISSILES. You're not certain, but screw it, better safe than sorry. Launch on warning is VERY risky, but it's pretty much post-1960 nuclear orthodoxy. It's not preemption. But there's always been a group of people out there with a serious jones for nuclear war-fighting, who were mostly kept away from the gun and liquor cabinets after 1990. /14 Now, did we have *plans* for doing all kinds of ghastly things? Yes. Strategic Air Command came up with thousands of targets. That's what planners and targeters do. But that wasn't ever policy, and isn't now. Even DICK CHENEY tried to pare back the target list. /15 Now those nuclear war-fighters are back, and trying to change things while Trump's in office because he has no idea about "the nuclear" or what any of this means. What it really means is lots of consulting contracts, mostly in the 703 area code, and new weapons systems later. /16 I don't know what Warren thinks about Launch on Warning, but it seems clear to me she was rejecting was the "if they even *think* it" school of nuclear warfare. We maintain a ridiculously high alert status and I hope she or someone puts an end to that. /17 Now, there is *one* place she's open to criticism here: Launch on Warning, if it ever made sense, still only makes sense for peer competitors like RU or PRC. What about North Korea? Can't we just preempt those guys if they look at us sideways? /18 Hell, if NK has only one or two missiles, nuking it sounds tempting. But you'd better not be wrong, you better be ready for the consequences of a nuclear disaster, and you'd better pray that other powers don't mistake what you're doing as a prelude to a bigger war. /19 That's why the Bush and Obama admins have been trying to create a conventional capability for long-range, quick strikes. For years. Because once you break the nuclear seal, you've opened up Pandora's box, including other powers now saying that all bets are off on nuclear use. /19 Add to this that we are *just not going to fight limited nuclear wars*, at all, and certainly not in NK or Mideast. People we care about live there. Retaliation against the USSR, or RU and PRC, was and is credible because we'd be facing extinction. Not so against NK or IR. /20 So to dump on Warren's position, you'd have to argue that (1) US nuclear policy since 1960 has been stupidly and even dangerously weak; (2) We must decide now to blow up any small-size nuke threat at will if we can get to it; (3) and we can only do (2) with a nuclear weapon. /21 Otherwise, all Warren did was to say: "I won't change our already dangerous declaratory policy - the same policy that's been in place for decades under R and D presidents - to some koo-koo pants thing that says we can use nukes if we see you even *think* about it." /22 The people who trashed the INF Treaty and who are trying to bring us back to 1983 are dangerous. I have my problems with Warren, but this one isn't even on the list. She's right on nukes - and her view is a *mainstream* view. Her critics, not so much. /23x "

[Edited on August 3, 2019 at 11:06 AM. Reason : link]

8/3/2019 11:05:59 AM

would a hypothetical EMP attack be classified as nuclear? thats the only reason to keep the door open.

8/3/2019 11:43:33 AM

Everyone needs to sit down and watch War Games again.

8/3/2019 5:10:57 PM

I'm a fan of Beto, but not a fan of him talking politics so soon after these attacks

8/4/2019 1:07:16 PM

okay you can disregard my encouraging words earlier. not only is that a completely moronic stance to take but its also his hometown

[Edited on August 4, 2019 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2019 1:12:17 PM

Now is not the time to politicize the gun deaths that just happened in his hometown.

Jesus Christ.

8/4/2019 1:43:01 PM

What is there to be a fan of with Beto? There is no substance there.

8/4/2019 1:45:00 PM

The bar is low enough that literally anyone that isn’t a foaming at the mouth racist, bought and paid for, anti-human being republican is a breath of fresh air.

People are looking for anything that doesn’t have the putrid stink of republicanism/conservatism on it.

And that’s how Beto pulls eye balls in.

8/4/2019 1:55:57 PM

No, I totally get him being there and talking about preventative actions. I am just very surprised that he jumped right into the Trump being a white supremasicst talk. I mean, I agree that he is saying the right things, it just seems like bad timing for me.

8/4/2019 2:53:42 PM

you read above that it's his home town, right?

8/4/2019 3:36:58 PM

YES

I know where the dude is from. I have been following him for a while and he's my hopeful for the next POTUS.

Just sayin, the bodies weren't even cold yet and he's talking about Trump being a white supremacist. I get that he was emotionally affected, but it was surprising.

8/4/2019 6:37:41 PM

El Paso use to be my pitstop when I was traveling west from ATX. It's a great city, with a lot of nice people. I just feel pretty terrible for these guys at the moment. It's horrible.

8/4/2019 7:16:33 PM

Yea crazy he would mention the main inspiration for a terrorist attack

"the towers were barely down and Bush was already mentioning al qaeda! Have some respect!"

8/4/2019 7:36:33 PM

They took responsibility for that. And since you mentioned it, bush didn't go on and on about how Muslims were horrible ppl.

Yes, Trump's language has been horrid. First modern leader since Hitler to say that.

[Edited on August 4, 2019 at 7:56 PM. Reason : K]

8/4/2019 7:55:30 PM

Quote :

"bush didn't go on and on about how Muslims were horrible ppl."

What in the fuck does that have to do with anything? Do you think all Muslims have blame for terrorist attacks? Do all Muslims support al qaeda? What a stupid, useless point.

8/4/2019 8:12:28 PM

What no. Was comparing him to Trump and his derogatory rhetoric against the Latinos

8/4/2019 10:39:32 PM

Quote :

"he's my hopeful for the next POTUS"

You still haven't said why.

8/4/2019 10:54:38 PM

I'm having a hard time deciding who I like better, uptown Charlotte or downtown Raleigh.

8/5/2019 10:30:01 AM