U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[Kalbear]

Yeah, if you want to talk about the 'battle for the soul of Democrats' can we talk about Sanders backing a pro-life candidate in Mello, and how apparently his 'revolution' is essentially 'get anyone he possibly can to join his cause regardless of any view they have'?

At least Perez is point blank saying 'nope, that shit don't fly'. That's actually occurring, right now. 

Meanwhile, Pelosi is fighting (and apparently winning) on the budget, and the zombie AHCA is coming back as they finally found a bill that is cruel enough to satisfy the Freedom Caucus. 

[all swedes are racist]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, if you want to talk about the 'battle for the soul of Democrats' can we talk about Sanders backing a pro-life candidate in Mello, and how apparently his 'revolution' is essentially 'get anyone he possibly can to join his cause regardless of any view they have'?

At least Perez is point blank saying 'nope, that shit don't fly'. That's actually occurring, right now. 

Meanwhile, Pelosi is fighting (and apparently winning) on the budget, and the zombie AHCA is coming back as they finally found a bill that is cruel enough to satisfy the Freedom Caucus. 

yeah, this is one thing I'll say Perez is 100% correct on (now). this should be a non starter; this battle has been won for years (in terms of the dem/left base) and conceding even an inch is not just gross, but stupid as well

[Swordfish]

18 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Yeah, I will take your interest in seeing a stronger Democratic Party with a grain of salt. But thanks all the same. 

 

I have very litytle interest in a stronger democratic party, except in the context in which it prevents something like Trump.

i have never claimed otherwise.

Quote

And you're assuming the premise in your argument, which is that Clinton lost the election to Trump due in part to the leadership of the party. I dispute this and don't accept it without further analysis and details. 

That would be pretty much exactly the details and analysis the article (and presumably the book) appear to be doing.

 

 

Quote

As for introspection, I've read plenty already, thanks for caring though. I'm also actively doing something at the local level, too. But sure, I need a book and an article about a book to tell me. Yeah, that's the ticket. 

So you aren't looking for more analysis and detail?  or you are?

At any rate, you're welcome.

 

 

7 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Like the man says, "Anything stand out?"

 

it illustrates how badly the Clintons mangled the email scandal, more than anything.

2 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Clinton campaign did mishandle the Sanders campaign - they should have squashed them mercilessly much earlier on.

Ha.  Like they did with Obama in '08, you mean?

How'd that work out?

 

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Why are we beating this dead horse again when there are much more important things to discuss?  We have newly proposed tax plans, multiple EO lawsuits, the first Ivanka outing as a WH ambassador, Kushner put in charge of everything, what looks like another pass on HC reform.... and we're discussing Clinton because Swordfish linked an article about a book geared for the RW talk radio crowd?

yeah, I don't know what i was thinking linking to an article by Matt Tabibi.  

The guy is such a known fluffer for Trump and the RW talk radio crowd.  

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Mitch McConnell Warns Democrats Not to Mitch McConnell Him...

 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/330662-mcconnell-warns-dems-no-poison-pills-in-funding-bill?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The magical unicorn quote is my favorite.

It is utterly laughable.

The repeal of the deduction for state taxes disproportionately hurts blue states, so color me unsurprised.  The AMT should go.  It's a gawd awful trap that became necessary because of all the other junk.  NAR and NAREIT oppose the increase in the standard deduction because, though the mortgage interest deduction remains, it becomes less valuable.  The pass through income thing is HUGE. Also, you will really need a robust accumulated earnings tax to keep people from sheltering income in corporations.

The bold is going to suck if it passes. If they go to 3 tax brackets, I likely go up in tax rate and then get hit again with the removal of the state tax deduction. There are 20+ Repub representatives from CA/NY, can't see them liking this all that much.

[aceluby]

48 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The bold is going to suck if it passes. If they go to 3 tax brackets, I likely go up in tax rate and then get hit again with the removal of the state tax deduction. There are 20+ Repub representatives from CA/NY, can't see them liking this all that much.

Me too.  This would definitely hit anyone falling into the upper middle class so those at the top get a bigly tax cut.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, r'hllor's reformed lobster said:

yeah, this is one thing I'll say Perez is 100% correct on (now). this should be a non starter; this battle has been won for years (in terms of the dem/left base) and conceding even an inch is not just gross, but stupid as well

The problem here is you'll further isolate the party geographically if you say views on issues like abortion or the Second Amendment serve as a litmus test to a potential candidacy. You have to run candidates that can actually win, and if you have a given constituency that's overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, you're dooming yourself from the start if you demand that the Democratic candidate must be pro-choice.  

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

yeah, I don't know what i was thinking linking to an article by Matt Tabibi.  

The guy is such a known fluffer for Trump and the RW talk radio crowd.  

Maybe reread what was actually stated?  I was talking about the book and didn't mention the article at all.  And while you may find it absolutely fascinating, I find it funny that one of the prominent board conservatives wants to keep discussing Clinton's loss 6 months after the fact.  You'd think with locks across the board from federal down to local governments you'd want to talk about how awesome the conservative agenda is for the average American so everyone can finally see the light of how great conservatism is.

Nope.  Let's talk about Clinton some more.

[Swordfish]

13 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Maybe reread what was actually stated?  I was talking about the book and didn't mention the article at all.  

I'm completely clear on what was actually stated. I'll quote it for you:

Quote

and we're discussing Clinton because Swordfish linked an article about a book geared for the RW talk radio crowd?

 

Quote

You'd think with locks across the board from federal down to local governments you'd want to talk about how awesome the conservative agenda is for the average American so everyone can finally see the light of how great conservatism is.

Which I suppose just goes to show how wrong we can be when you make assumptions, MIRITE?

 

[aceluby]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm completely clear on what was actually stated. I'll quote it for you:

And.... what part are you having trouble with?  Did you not link it?  Or is the article not about a book?  That's all that was stated, so I'm confused as to why you think I'm making commentary about the article's author, when I clearly did not.

[Swordfish]

26 minutes ago, aceluby said:

And.... what part are you having trouble with?  Did you not link it?  Or is the article not about a book?  That's all that was stated, so I'm confused as to why you think I'm making commentary about the article's author, when I clearly did not.

Specifically in that post you quoted I was having trouble with this:

 

Quote

I was talking about the book and didn't mention the article at all.  

 

[Fragile Bird]

It must burn the crap right out of Democrats to watch two ex-Goldman Sachs executives announce the tax cut plan, considering Trump's non-stop bullshit during the campaign about Clinton and her links to Goldman.

And holy deep-fried-shit-on-a-stick, how do you people put up with a government that can talk about massive tax reforms proposed by a president who will.not.reveal.his.tax.returns. Billionaire conflicts of interest, anyone?

And excuse me for being a dumb foreigner, but I could of sworn I heard Trump say over and over and over again during the election campaign how he was going raise taxes for the 1%. Did anyone see a tax increase for the 1% in that reform package?

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It must burn the crap right out of Democrats to watch two ex-Goldman Sachs executives announce the tax cut plan, considering Trump's non-stop bullshit during the campaign about Clinton and her links to Goldman.

And holy deep-fried-shit-on-a-stick, how do you people put up with a government that can talk about massive tax reforms proposed by a president who will.not.reveal.his.tax.returns. Billionaire conflicts of interest, anyone?

And excuse me for being a dumb foreigner, but I could of sworn I heard Trump say over and over and over again during the election campaign how he was going raise taxes for the 1%. Did anyone see a tax increase for the 1% in that reform package?

Did he promise that?  I don't remember it and a quick google search doesn't really turn up anything.

Not that it matters.  He doesn't seem to really care that much about what he said then, and neither does his base, as far as i can tell.

[Fragile Bird]

18 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Did he promise that?  I don't remember it and a quick google search doesn't really turn up anything.

Not that it matters.  He doesn't seem to really care that much about what he said then, and neither does his base, as far as i can tell.

Uh, it wasn't that hard, he was saying it from the beginning... Donald Trump Says He Wants To Raise Taxes on Himself.

He continued after that opening speech back in 2015 to say repeatedly on the campaign trail he would lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the rich, like hedge fund managers who were getting away without paying their fair share. For one thing, he would eliminate the tax deduction on carried interest, which would mean people like him would pay a lot more in taxes.

Even after he released his tax plan, more than a year ago, which analysts said showed the very rich would benefit the most, not the middle class, he kept claiming his tax reforms would help the middle class most of all.

[Swordfish]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uh, it wasn't that hard, he was saying it from the beginning... Donald Trump Says He Wants To Raise Taxes on Himself.

He continued after that opening speech back in 2015 to say repeatedly on the campaign trail he would lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the rich, like hedge fund managers who were getting away without paying their fair share. For one thing, he would eliminate the tax deduction on carried interest, which would mean people like him would pay a lot more in taxes.

Even after he released his tax plan, more than a year ago, which analysts said showed the very rich would benefit the most, not the middle class, he kept claiming his tax reforms would help the middle class most of all.

Interesting.  Thanks.

All I could really find that comes close is this politifact item which calls his claims 'Tax cuts for everyone'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/subjects/taxes/

So he seems to have been all over the board, not surprisingly.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol, after the big announcement Trump was going to sign the required notice to cancel NAFTA, Trump spoke to the PM of Canada and the president of Mexico tonight and agreed not to send out the notice.

Turd.

[all swedes are racist]

so it appears the new VOICE hotline is up and running....

 

 

 

....and supposedly overwhelmed by people calling in to report space aliens.

lol, sometimes i love this country

[TrueMetis]

43 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, after the big announcement Trump was going to sign the required notice to cancel NAFTA, Trump spoke to the PM of Canada and the president of Mexico tonight and agreed not to send out the notice.

Turd.

Which is funnier to me, because I saw in my face book feeds how the "weak" Liberals are never going to have an chance against Trump because "he built his fortune on being a great negotiator" or some such nonsense. Fucking RepublicanLite's so glad O'leary dropped out, we had Bushlite in the form of Harper we don't need a Trumplite.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just to jump back to the topic of whether or not Trump might be displaying some signs of Alzheimer's or dementia, I came across a solid video on the topic from David Pakman tonight...

 

I thought this was a pretty measured take and more than a bit convincing.

[ThinkerX]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, if you want to talk about the 'battle for the soul of Democrats' can we talk about Sanders backing a pro-life candidate in Mello, and how apparently his 'revolution' is essentially 'get anyone he possibly can to join his cause regardless of any view they have'?

At least Perez is point blank saying 'nope, that shit don't fly'. That's actually occurring, right now. 

Meanwhile, Pelosi is fighting (and apparently winning) on the budget, and the zombie AHCA is coming back as they finally found a bill that is cruel enough to satisfy the Freedom Caucus. 

Well, ignoring what a significant percentage of the populace is saying is one way to make loosing elections a near certainty.  Especially, since the spurned group account for a major share of younger voters - future of the country and all that.  People who see the democratic (and republican) parties for the shams they are.

 

Sanders movement did not come out of nowhere.  It is not going to quietly fade away, and the pro corporate interests in both parties cannot accept the basic message these people are pushing.