US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[Mlle. Zabzie]

@Frog Eater do you believe that within constitutional limits, states should have the right to set their own laws on a variety of subjects?  

If so, do you believe that concealed carry is without doubt guaranteed by the 2nd amendment so that no state has the right to limit it? That it is something akin to marriage that should be respected by the full faith and credit clause?  Why so?  The application of that clause isn't really that clear even in the context of marriage.  And, from a policy perspective, why should the standards of a rural state be superimposed on an urban state where the cares and concerns are much different?  Put differently, why shouldn't this be a state by state determination, within the confines of the 2nd amendment? 

 

 

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I am personally going to get a huge tax cut.  A massive tax cut.  A BIGLY tax cut, in fact.  I can tell you right now that this isn't necessarily fair, and that the marginal dollar of cut here isn't that meaningful to me.  It will not cause me to spend (the savings will more or less end up in my kids' college savings accounts, I would imagine, as well as in some guilty increased donations to organizations that I like - e.g., ACLU, SPLC).  It should make most of you really, really angry.

You all should also consider carefully the estate tax replacement proposal.  It is equally not crazy - taxing capital gains at death would actually be one of the fairest things you could do.

So, anyhow, mixed bag.  Probably inflationary in the long run, less stimulus than you think, but there are parts that are non-nuts.  

What are we really going to get?  Limited business tax reform, because the special interest lobbies (I'm looking at you, oil and gas, and you, real estate).  Brackets and rates slashed as promised for individuals.  

Yeah, me too, as near as I can tell. And what am I going to spend this windfall on? A combination of paying down my student loan debt and increased savings for retirement; hardly a stimulative effect on the economy (although whenever I do have those loans gone I will begin spending a lot more, but that's still a very long-term effect).

I don't necessarily hate the specific reforms that are being proposed, some of them I think are pretty good actually. Its just that I want them to be made in conjunction with rates that would increase overall Federal revenue, not slash it. But I'm also someone who wants to eliminate the corporate income tax entirely and replace it with increased capital gains taxes and reduced ability for individuals to expense personal costs to corporate accounts, so I have some unorthodox views.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, Fez said:

Yeah, me too, as near as I can tell. And what am I going to spend this windfall on? A combination of paying down my student loan debt and increased savings for retirement; hardly a stimulative effect on the economy (although whenever I do have those loans gone I will begin spending a lot more, but that's still a very long-term effect).

I don't necessarily hate the specific reforms that are being proposed, some of them I think are pretty good actually. Its just that I want them to be made in conjunction with rates that would increase overall Federal revenue, not slash it. But I'm also someone who wants to eliminate the corporate income tax entirely and replace it with increased capital gains taxes and reduced ability for individuals to expense personal costs to corporate accounts, so I have some unorthodox views.

Hah - you aren't totally crazy, honestly.  The CIT does introduce a lot of complexity to the market.  The issue with eliminating the CIT with your proposal is that you would also have to dismantle how we tax foreign owners and pension funds/state sovereigns.  That is, right now the income is taxed once, at the corporate level, but to the extent the corporate stock is owned by foreigners and/or pension funds/retirement accounts, it is not taxed again (at least for a very long time).  So, you'd have to abolish the exemption for foreigners, and probably for pensions/state sovereigns (to the extent you can, Constitutionally), and need to impose a collection mechanism for those taxes.  Because of the complexity of collection from non-taxables (particularly foreigners), you'd really be imposing a collection at source, like a withholding tax, but with more complexity, and well, dammed if it doesn't start to look like a CIT again.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

58 minutes ago, aceluby said:

State-wide efforts are a losing proposition.  The thought that you could flip life long republican voters if democrats would put up the right candidate is a pipe dream.  People have been voting against their self interests for decades because of the letter that follows the name of the candidate, and that's not going to stop any time soon.

This may be true in general, but at least as of last month, in Pennsylvania, 100k Democrats had flipped their affiliation (many of them lifelong Democrats) as opposed to only 40k Republicans. Of course, the urban base has to come out an vote, but starting with a 60k deficit makes it much tougher when the margins are tight.

The reasons for this are many-fold, but part of it has been the energy policy pursued by Obama and promised to be continued by Clinton, and the fact that they felt Trump was speaking for them. If the Republicans can do vote switching in select states, I dont see why it cant be part of the strategy for the Democrats as well.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

So a friend of mine in the US was telling me that the trend of saying  "Merry Christmas" is getting replaced with "Happy Holidays!" out of a desire to be more politically correct...Do y'all think this kind of extreme PC culture contributed to Trump getting  supporters who felt increasingly disgruntled with this type of attitude? Cause I remember Trump's Son(Eric?) mentioning this in one of his speeches and he was tremendously applauded for it.
I mean im not even a christian but i totally understand how pissed of this would  make people,when other people tell them they are not being PC by saying merry Christmas.

Its like those 9gag posts where people make fun of easily triggered people by sarcastically claiming that they identify as an Apache Helicopter and get pissed off when people just "assume their gender".

I'm all for courtesy,but some of this PC stuff is getting to over-sensitive...

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

So a friend of mine in the US was telling me that the trend of saying  "Merry Christmas" is getting replaced with "Happy Holidays!" out of a desire to be more politically correct...Do y'all think this kind of extreme PC culture contributed to Trump getting  supporters who felt increasingly disgruntled with this type of attitude? Cause I remember Trump's Son(Eric?) mentioning this in one of his speeches and he was tremendously applauded for it.
I mean im not even a christian but i totally understand how pissed of this would  make people,when other people tell them they are not being PC by saying merry Christmas.

Its like those 9gag posts where people make fun of easily triggered people by sarcastically claiming that they identify as an Apache Helicopter and get pissed off when people just "assume their gender".

I'm all for courtesy,but some of this PC stuff is getting to over-sensitive...

This so called 'war on christmas' is a made up story by the right.  it doesn't exist.  Or at least, it exists only because they want it to exist and because they want to be catered to in a very specific way.  They want Starbucks to put baby jesus on their cups instead of snowflakes and if Starbucks puts snowflakes, the right calls it a war on christmas and being PC.  

[Frog Eater]

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@Frog Eater do you believe that within constitutional limits, states should have the right to set their own laws on a variety of subjects?  

If so, do you believe that concealed carry is without doubt guaranteed by the 2nd amendment so that no state has the right to limit it? That it is something akin to marriage that should be respected by the full faith and credit clause?  Why so?  The application of that clause isn't really that clear even in the context of marriage.  And, from a policy perspective, why should the standards of a rural state be superimposed on an urban state where the cares and concerns are much different?  Put differently, why shouldn't this be a state by state determination, within the confines of the 2nd amendment? 

 

 

>do you believe that within constitutional limits, states should have the right to set their own laws on a variety of subjects?

within constitutional limits, yes. 

>do you believe that concealed carry is without doubt guaranteed by the 2nd amendment so that no state has the right to limit it?

I believe my right to bear arms shall not be infringed, period. If I am concealed carrying, and while traveling, cross a state border, should not be punished for observing the concealed carry laws under which I was licensed. I wholeheartedly believe the full faith and credit clause applies to concealed carry permits. 

copied and pasted:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to re-litigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

23 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

>do you believe that within constitutional limits, states should have the right to set their own laws on a variety of subjects?

within constitutional limits, yes. 

>do you believe that concealed carry is without doubt guaranteed by the 2nd amendment so that no state has the right to limit it?

I believe my right to bear arms shall not be infringed, period. If I am concealed carrying, and while traveling, cross a state border, should not be punished for observing the concealed carry laws under which I was licensed. I wholeheartedly believe the full faith and credit clause applies to concealed carry permits. 

copied and pasted:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to re-litigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

Right, and the judicial interpretation of what "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" means is way less clear than you think it is.  Unsurprisingly, the judiciary is very protective of court orders.  However, things like licensure are NOT that clear.  Let's take the opposite side of the ideological coin - marriage.  You would think that if you are married in one state, you'd be married in all states.  Not necessarily so in the history of the interpretation of this clause!  Obergfell went in a different direction for a reason.  So, I don't think that clause is where I'd look to.  What I think is the better constitutional argument, if you really want to go there, is that there should be no restrictions on buying guns period, in any state (focusing on the shall not be infringed language in the second amendment).  While I personally believe that is horrendous public policy, I also don't think that is what the 2nd amendment is intended to mean.  There are limits on your right to bear arms just like there are limits on your free speech, and given that someone with a gun is way more likely to kill you than someone running their mouth, the state interest is, in fact, different.  And, so long as the limits are within the constitutionally permitted grounds, again, I see no reason why an urban high density area can't make a different choice about what those limits are than a lower density place.  

[Ice Queen]

47 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah, me too, as near as I can tell. And what am I going to spend this windfall on? A combination of paying down my student loan debt and increased savings for retirement; hardly a stimulative effect on the economy (although whenever I do have those loans gone I will begin spending a lot more, but that's still a very long-term effect).

I don't necessarily hate the specific reforms that are being proposed, some of them I think are pretty good actually. Its just that I want them to be made in conjunction with rates that would increase overall Federal revenue, not slash it. But I'm also someone who wants to eliminate the corporate income tax entirely and replace it with increased capital gains taxes and reduced ability for individuals to expense personal costs to corporate accounts, so I have some unorthodox views.

Well, congrats to both of you. If they eliminate the head of household filing status, single parents like me are going to be bigly screwed. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The KKK has thousands of members and they have a newspaper.  The KKK and all other white nationalist groups (there are many in case you don't know) have been emboldened by this election where Trump used language to incite them.  They are relevant, they are an active part of our history, they continue to hold marches every year, and more.  If you think they and other white nationalist groups have become irrelevant over the years, Trump made them relevant again. 

This complete denial that Trump isn't being supported by white supremacists is outrageous.  

The key difference is that they've had power. The Black Panthers never really have, and they're a much smaller group. 

[The guy from the Vale]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, congrats to both of you. If they eliminate the head of household filing status, single parents like me are going to be bigly screwed. 

Well, don't you understand? You shouldn't have made those poor decisions that left you without a manly moneymaker on your side. That's so irresponsible of liberal womanfolk like you! /sarcasm

[Mindwalker]

I just watched Sanders' first interview since the election and I'm more convinced than ever he would have made a fine president for the US,  a good partner for Europe (and the rest of the world) and a good role model for our left/ liberal parties (which are not in a much better states than in the US)...As it is, the extreme right-wing forces are rejoicing and feeling empowered by Trump...

 

Btw., loved the British ranter, Jonathan Pie!

[MorgulisMaximus]

What Song of Ice and Fire characters do each candidate remind you of?

I would say Hillary has similarities to Littlefinger. She has a huge network of informers spread throughout all levels of government and media (Brazille, Waserman-Shultz). She has grown enormously wealthy by somewhat shady means (Wall Street money). And her strategy was to tell corporate America one thing and main street America another thing (multi-faced).

Oddly (yes extremely oddly) Trump was like an oranged-haired male version of Danaerys. Dany was constantly under-estimated by the ruling classes of Slavers Bay. Yet, she repeatedly surprised and defeated them. Her platform was to overthrow the existing order. And her support base was the poor and under-educated.

[Ice Queen]

13 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Well, don't you understand? You shouldn't have made those poor decisions that left you without a manly moneymaker on your side. That's so irresponsible of liberal womanfolk like you! /sarcasm

LOL Yes, I know, we're scum of the Earth. 

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Do y'all think this kind of extreme PC culture contributed to Trump getting  supporters who felt increasingly disgruntled with this type of attitude?

Not because of the example in your post, but yes, it undoubtedly did. The most striking example is a pretty amusing case of "the boy who cried wolf" or, if you prefer, the kind of poison immunity described in The Count of Monte Cristo and The Princess Bride. Much of the media spent literally Trump's entire campaign throwing the whole kitchen sink of politically correct epithets (racists, sexist, etc.) at him for comments which ranged from common sense to the rare ones genuinely offensive to most people. Then, in early October, they dug up his "locker room talk" which was really offensive and outside the social norms of practically everyone. Even Trump himself took the rare step of unequivocally apologizing for what he said.

Ordinarily, this kind of October surprise should do significant damage to a candidate... but part of that is the media incessantly hammering on the incident and detailing just how unacceptable various "experts" think it is. They did it here too, of course, but given that this was at best a slightly higher amplitude version of what they had been doing the entire election, it wasn't nearly as effective. Trump took some damage from the incident, but it wasn't catastrophic and there was enough time left for him to recover.

[Fez]

19 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Well, congrats to both of you. If they eliminate the head of household filing status, single parents like me are going to be bigly screwed. 

You're very unlikely to be screwed (directly) by tax code reforms. The rates are going to go down significantly as well. Depending on your income, at worst you'll probably be at even with where you are now. 

Its the cuts to government spending that are going to really screw people.

But who knows really? Everything is up in the air with Trump. The only thing I'm fairly confident in is that Social Security isn't going to be touched.

[Red Tiger]

2 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

What Song of Ice and Fire characters do each candidate remind you of?

I would say Hillary has similarities to Littlefinger. She has a huge network of informers spread throughout all levels of government and media (Brazille, Waserman-Shultz). She has grown enormously wealthy by somewhat shady means (Wall Street money). And her strategy was to tell corporate America one thing and main street America another thing (multi-faced).

Oddly (yes extremely oddly) Trump was like an oranged-haired male version of Danaerys. Dany was constantly under-estimated by the ruling classes of Slavers Bay. Yet, she repeatedly surprised and defeated them. Her platform was to overthrow the existing order. And her support base was the poor and under-educated.

And Dany sucked at governing, another thing they will turn out to have in common.

[DunderMifflin]

NAACP praise is not a get out of racism free badge.

That's been a sketchy organization since the beginning. From not allowing black people to hold office to giving Donald Sterling awards. 

[Ice Queen]

29 minutes ago, Fez said:

You're very unlikely to be screwed (directly) by tax code reforms. The rates are going to go down significantly as well. Depending on your income, at worst you'll probably be at even with where you are now. 

Its the cuts to government spending that are going to really screw people.

But who knows really? Everything is up in the air with Trump. The only thing I'm fairly confident in is that Social Security isn't going to be touched.

Well, I hope you're right. I have kids in college and they're still my dependents for a little while longer. This could really hurt. 

[DunderMifflin]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, the celebrations being held by the KKK over Trump's victory,how should those be viewed?

As Clickbait