General politics

[MMMordabito]

 

I'll admit I've insulted Trump plenty of times, but I hope I've rarely if ever insulted another poster here.

 

Just curious did you get warning points for doing that?  It would speak to the leanings of some moderators if you didn't.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Here's AOC from today's hearing questioning Cohen.  Note not one "like," and jeeze she seems so out of her element.

 

Here's the full video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRK3FwmjH-Y 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Just curious did you get warning points for doing that?  It would speak to the leanings of some moderators if you didn't.

I don't think I insulted him personally on this board (but I'm sure someone could construe my criticism of him as such); I was speaking for myself in real life.  

 

Did you get warning points for your "like" post poking at AOC?  Must have a bunch of right wing moderators then, no? 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not going down the birth lottery hole .... This is always a foul that the have-nots cry.

So you do you believe in a meritocracy or not?  Because I'm having trouble squaring your thoughts on what people "deserve."

[ashbury]

Just curious did you get warning points for doing that?  It would speak to the leanings of some moderators if you didn't.

Moderator's note: You know a good way to draw moderators' attention to oneself? Invite discussion of moderation policy in a forum thread about another topic. Please refer again to the site's Comment Policy, and note especially the various ways to pursue questions about site moderation, such as opening a discussion topic in the Questions About MinnCentric forum. The tangent about it in this thread ends here.

[Badsmerf]

I'd rather the GOP attack AOC than Pelosi. I think Pelosi is much more vulnerable and much more of a liability than AOC. Attacks against AOC will work with the older generation and racists.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'd rather the GOP attack AOC than Pelosi. I think Pelosi is much more vulnerable and much more of a liability than AOC. Attacks against AOC will work with the older generation and racists.

I agree, but Pelosi has been much more politically palatable than I anticipated, so credit due where it's deserved. 

[MMMordabito]

So you do you believe in a meritocracy or not? Because I'm having trouble squaring your thoughts on what people "deserve."

I believe that if you work and earn something you get the privilege of keeping it or choosing who gets it. It isn't up to some supposed more qualified entity to decide that for you.

 

With that said, it is in everyone's best interest to have a central entity to provide infrastructure. I have no problem paying taxes for that. That includes fixing the complicated healthcare system, but it doesn't need to be free.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I believe that if you work and earn something you get the privilege of keeping it or choosing who gets it. It isn't up to some supposed more qualified entity to decide that for you.

With that said, it is in everyone's best interest to have a central entity to provide infrastructure. I have no problem paying taxes for that. That includes fixing the complicated healthcare system, but it doesn't need to be free.

We can probably find agreement, then.  (Of course, I question both whether the market appropriate pays those who contribute the most, and that those who earn the most are rational in terms of where they decide to spend it or save it, e.g. giving to their children.  I hope we can agree we need less Donald Trump Jr.'s of the world.  And having a whole class/generations of people who never have to work for wealth is bad for all).  That parenthetical aside, how do you think we should tax, and who should we tax? Are you in favor of a progressive tax (taxing more the more you earn; capital gains; higher corporate tax), a regressive tax (sales tax and the like); I mean is a high estate tax such a bad idea, given the beneficiary didn't earn it (putting aside that a dead person wants it to go to them)?  

 

And I don't think any wants to be on welfare or really wants anything for "free." People want meaningful work and to earn a living where they aren't living in constant anxiety about making ends meet (for my part, I grew up modestly, and saw this worry take years off my parent's lives, who both had fulltime jobs, and worked on the side).   For instant, why not see access to higher education as an investment in our fellow citizens, to keep them from being a drag on society as a whole? 

 

There's common ground here.  Let's find it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I believe that if you work and earn something you get the privilege of keeping it or choosing who gets it. It isn't up to some supposed more qualified entity to decide that for you.

With that said, it is in everyone's best interest to have a central entity to provide infrastructure. I have no problem paying taxes for that. That includes fixing the complicated healthcare system, but it doesn't need to be free.

 

But you don't really get to decide what is done with your money and everyone gets taxed....so I'm not sure how that first paragraph can hold up?

[Mike Sixel]

I believe that if you work and earn something you get the privilege of keeping it or choosing who gets it. It isn't up to some supposed more qualified entity to decide that for you.

 

With that said, it is in everyone's best interest to have a central entity to provide infrastructure. I have no problem paying taxes for that. That includes fixing the complicated healthcare system, but it doesn't need to be free.

This is a very respectful post, in reply to a challenging question. Nicely done. And, there is common ground here for sure.

[MMMordabito]

We can probably find agreement, then. (Of course, I question both whether the market appropriate pays those who contribute the most, and that those who earn the most are rational in terms of where they decide to spend it or save it, e.g. giving to their children. I hope we can agree we need less Donald Trump Jr.'s of the world. And having a whole class/generations of people who never have to work for wealth is bad for all). That parenthetical aside, how do you think we should tax, and who should we tax? Are you in favor of a progressive tax (taxing more the more you earn; capital gains; higher corporate tax), a regressive tax (sales tax and the like); I mean is a high estate tax such a bad idea, given the beneficiary didn't earn it (putting aside that a dead person wants it to go to them)?

 

And I don't think any wants to be on welfare or really wants anything for "free." People want meaningful work and to earn a living where they aren't living in constant anxiety about making ends meet (for my part, I grew up modestly, and saw this worry take years off my parent's lives, who both had fulltime jobs, and worked on the side). For instant, why not see access to higher education as an investment in our fellow citizens, to keep them from being a drag on society as a whole?

 

There's common ground here. Let's find it.

Since you asked, I'm most in favor of use taxes. It goes right back to infrastructure. I don't agree with all of Walz' plan, but I actually don't have any problem with his gas tax hike. I like to drive and would prefer that it be on well-kept roads and bridges.

 

I'm not sure a use tax could be applied to something like medical care unless some very careful and unbiased forethought was put into deciding what was a nice-to-have (solo recovery room?).

 

Estate tax or death tax is a tough one for me. I understand where you are coming from, but I really think the person who earned it should decide or at minimum have major input.

 

Obviously, more Bill Gates and Warren Buffets would be better for the world than Donald Trumps and Rupert Murdochs.

 

That's a start.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Since you asked, I'm most in favor of use taxes. It goes right back to infrastructure. I don't agree with all of Walz' plan, but I actually don't have any problem with his gas tax hike. I like to drive and would prefer that it be on well-kept roads and bridges.

I'm not sure a use tax could be applied to something like medical care unless some very careful and unbiased forethought was put into deciding what was a nice-to-have (solo recovery room?).

Estate tax or death tax is a tough one for me. I understand where you are coming from, but I really think the person who earned it should decide or at minimum have major input.

Obviously, more Bill Gates and Warren Buffets would be better for the world than Donald Trumps and Rupert Murdochs.

That's a start.

Thanks for the reply.

 

What you call use tax, I call, and many call, a regressive tax. The poor person pays the same tax on gas as the rich person (a greater share of the poor person's earnings, so under this system they have more trouble gaining wealth); it also affects actual industry (your example the gas tax), as opposed to those who benefit from industry. (As an aside, there's an old economic debate between "use value" and "exchange value" and that's part of my point about the current market, it values the latter.) Does inequality not worry you? Let them eat cake isn't really a viable policy.  (At some point the born-poor and the wage-earners won't take it any more, they'll steal your stuff if not revolt.) And I'm glad we agree benevolent billionaires are preferable to tax evading billionaires.  

 

And not to press a good natured discussion too far, but you haven't responded to the notion that the market actually pays people for their contribution--if we can agree there's inequity in the way CEOs and professional athletes are paid as opposed to laborers, teachers, etc., why not tax them at a higher rate to balance that out.  (Indeed why do we put up with inequity at birth, but it's a bridge to far to balance inequity during life).   And why would we want to continue wealthy aristocracy? How many generations of Waltons need to be rich off Wal-Mart before what's deserved is so divorced from who gets the money.  (And really that's a lot of who is the 1%, Bill Gates, etc. are the exception in terms of making their own wealth). 

 

(Also watch that video of AOC above, I think you'll find her less of schmuck than what's being circulated in the interwebs.  She's a young, even naive, politician, but she didn't grandstand like some today and was deft in terms of tracking down actual evidence and corroboration). 

[MMMordabito]

Thanks for the reply.

 

What you call use tax, I call, and many call, a regressive tax. The poor person pays the same tax on gas as the rich person (a greater share of the poor person's earnings, so under this system they have more trouble gaining wealth); it also affects actual industry (your example the gas tax), as opposed to those who benefit from industry. (As an aside, there's an old economic debate between "use value" and "exchange value" and that's part of my point about the current market, it values the latter.) Does inequality not worry you? Let them eat cake isn't really a viable policy. (At some point the born-poor and the wage-earners won't take it any more, they'll steal your stuff if not revolt.) And I'm glad we agree benevolent billionaires are preferable to tax evading billionaires.

 

And not to press a good natured discussion too far, but you haven't responded to the notion that the market actually pays people for their contribution--if we can agree there's inequity in the way CEOs and professional athletes are paid as opposed to laborers, teachers, etc., why not tax them at a higher rate to balance that out. (Indeed why do we put up with inequity at birth, but it's a bridge to far to balance inequity during life). And why would we want to continue wealthy aristocracy? How many generations of Waltons need to be rich off Wal-Mart before what's deserved is so divorced from who gets the money. (And really that's a lot of who is the 1%, Bill Gates, etc. are the exception in terms of making their own wealth).

 

(Also watch that video of AOC above, I think you'll find her less of schmuck than what's being circulated in the interwebs. She's a young, even naive, politician, but she didn't grandstand like some today and was deft in terms of tracking down actual evidence and corroboration).

This is going to be a complicated discussion, because I feel like we both have different ideas about how big a role the federal government should play in our lives. The media attempts to make us feel like the federal government should be at the forefront of all our minds at all times. Before I could go much further on who should pay for what, I'd have to be convinced that "the what" isn't going to be a massive waste and that programs weren't going to be abused.

 

As far as that video (and others I've seen), she does seem prepared in the chamber. I don't like her tactic of forming a statement and then trying to get a subject expert to agree with her, but I think that's probably politics 101. I don't have a problem with her ideals at the base, but she doesn't seem to know or care how to get there without treading into a model of the country that I would never agree with. When she's not prepared in the chamber, I think she has this aura of arrogant naivety that is just laughable.

[Badsmerf]

In other news... Netanyahu is being indicted. No surprise that he is a scumbag. I doubt it has much consequence to our country, but hopefully Israel is able to put a better leader forward.

[Craig Arko]

 

In other news... Netanyahu is being indicted. No surprise that he is a scumbag. I doubt it has much consequence to our country, but hopefully Israel is able to put a better leader forward.

Am also following this, which could lead to real trouble. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/india/live-news/india-pakistan-kashmir-dle-intl/index.html

[Badsmerf]

I have colleagues in India right now too.

[ashbury]

Am also following this, which could lead to real trouble. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/india/live-news/india-pakistan-kashmir-dle-intl/index.html

I was about to say that Donald has no particular dog in this fight, and that the grown-ups will handle this in the usual manner of the past many decades... but then I thought to look at a map:

http://time.com/4629308/donald-trump-business-deals-world-map/#India

 

Donald's quotes while in office that Pakistan has not done "a damn thing for us" in regard to terror havens (far from an unaccountable foreign policy position, to be sure) takes on a different tinge that can't go unnoticed in diplomatic circles, when you consider Trump Tower Mumbai. Hopefully Mike Pompeo is adept at handling this addition to the already tricky terrain, such as quietly offering to be "good cop" and finding ways to carry through on any promises.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I *hated* the election of Pelosi to speaker chair again but I have to respect the woman and admit I was wrong. She is literally the best politician who could hold that place right now.

She is openly coming out and (politically) agreeing with most of the talking points Trump is trying to lay out about socialism. She straight up gamed Trump over the government closure.

 

She is not giving the man a single talking point to use going forward. He can rant and rave, but she's quietly positioning herself as a centrist.

 

And she's not even a factor in the coming election. It's a master stroke.

[USAFChief]

 

I *hated* the election of Pelosi to speaker chair again but I have to respect the woman and admit I was wrong. She is literally the best politician who could hold that place right now.

She is openly coming out and (politically) agreeing with most of the talking points Trump is trying to lay out about socialism. She straight up gamed Trump over the government closure.

 

She is not giving the man a single talking point to use going forward. He can rant and rave, but she's quietly positioning herself as a centrist.

 

And she's not even a factor in the coming election. It's a master stroke.

Nancy Pelosi is quite possibly the most skilled *politician in Washington today, and has been for quite some time. 

 

*Whether or not that's admirable is up for debate. But I'm glad she's a Democrat.

[ewen21]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

This is about the most in-depth estimation of Trump's approval rating as I can find.  It uses about every single poll there is and tries to average it out.  As far as I can tell, it's about 40something approve and 50something disapprove.  Whereas here, I would venture to say it is about 95% disapprove and 5% too afraid to comment,

[Badsmerf]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

This is about the most in-depth estimation of Trump's approval rating as I can find. It uses about every single poll there is and tries to average it out. As far as I can tell, it's about 40something approve and 50something disapprove. Whereas here, I would venture to say it is about 95% disapprove and 5% too afraid to comment,

I struggle to see how he can be approved by anyone. Even a partisan conservative.... I just don't see how one can approve how he is doing his job. Likely, he will go down as the worst president in my lifetime. I think they are overestimating his support. We do have a Trump topic btw.

[ewen21]

It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible

 

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here?

[Craig Arko]

 

It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here?

Do you prefer honesty, or agreement?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here?

Bias is not giving something a fair shake because of a preconceived notion. It's not bias that leads people around here to disapprove of Trump, it's his actions, words, and policy.

[Badsmerf]

Do you approve of Trump or the current direction and actions of the GOP?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I *hated* the election of Pelosi to speaker chair again but I have to respect the woman and admit I was wrong. She is literally the best politician who could hold that place right now.

She is openly coming out and (politically) agreeing with most of the talking points Trump is trying to lay out about socialism. She straight up gamed Trump over the government closure.

 

She is not giving the man a single talking point to use going forward. He can rant and rave, but she's quietly positioning herself as a centrist.

 

And she's not even a factor in the coming election. It's a master stroke.

I agree—this might literally be the first women he’s ever had to deal with (Sad!) and she’s just having him for lunch.

[Mike Sixel]

It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible

 

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here?

What do you mean by bias? If you mean I think he's a horrible human,yup. What's your point? This is a message board, not a news site.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

This is a message board, not a news site.

There’s still a difference?

[NumberThree]

There’s still a difference?

Depends on the news site.