Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ran said:

See Gallup's polling on taxes. More progressive taxation is obviously very possible when 70% of people believe corporations pay too little in taxes and 62% believe "upper income" pay too little. And I'm sure when you get to the ultra-wealthy, separating out the "upper income" into finer grained catgories, that number is just going to move up.

First, sorry about the regime confusion.  I should have realized that, but regardless it doesn't change anything substantively.  Anyway, that polling isn't what I was referring to.  When I say the wealth tax polls well, I'm referring to specific items asked in polls like this and this.  The items in Gallup's polling you cited tell us most people want the wealthy/corporations to pay more in taxes, but they don't tell us how they want to do it, which is the question at hand.  In fact, along with the item "Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country today is fair, or do you feel that the money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people?" resulting in a 59/34 split at the most recent round (which unfortunately is back in 2016), the numbers on these items could equally be used as indirect evidence in support of the wealth tax.  You can't differentiate among the supportive respondents there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ought to make a few 'irony meters' explode, especially if it catches on - which it likely will.  Imagine the cognitive dissonance required to denounce 'socialism' yet demand something of this sort.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/when-a-deep-red-town-s-only-grocery-closed-city-hall-opened-its-own-store-just-don-t-call-it-socialism/ar-BBX9Rp2?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR3KwWWazmRQU-QoX0MtogeTP9AFyfE05HsMODpm7ua4lwQn3lYxRkFLXd0

 

Notably, these experiments in communal ownership are taking place in deep-red parts of the country where the word “socialism” is anathema. “You expect to hear about this in a place like the People’s Republic of Massachusetts,” jokes Brian Lang, the director of the National Campaign for Healthy Food Access at The Food Trust.

But in many rural, conservative communities struggling to hang on to their remaining residents, ideological arguments about the role of government tend to be cast aside as grocery stores shutter due to population decline and competition from superstores.

“Fundamentally, what you have is people that have lived in these rural communities all their lives, and they want these rural communities to survive,” Procter said. “And they realize that without access to food, they’re not going to survive.”

By definition, a collectively owned, government-run enterprise like the Baldwin Market is inherently socialist. But Lynch, who has a nonpartisan position but governs a town where 68 percent of residents voted for Donald Trump in 2016, doesn’t see it that way. From his point of view, the town is just doing what it’s supposed to do: Providing services to residents who already pay enough in taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Any leftist who doesn't want to move to the progressive tax system of the past and would rather hold out for a regime that has an enormous Constitutional barrier  is an idiot.

Ran,

I think at least part of the reason for all the pushback is because you're substituting campaign politics for substantive governing policies. I don't really believe that Warren thinks for a second that she'll actually get a wealth tax passed. But it polls well to help her win.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have been winning elections for 40+ years by telling their voters they're going to repeal Roe v. Wade. And even with Trump's Court picks, it still may actually never be overturned. But the focus of the debate has been shifted so far to the right that abortion most likely will be de facto banned in several states. 

That's where I fit in the messaging of M4A and the wealth tax (other than believe that providing healthcare for everyone is good and wealth inequality is bad). It's redefining the terms of the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

This article (Vanity Fair, limited clicks) might make you want to gouge your eyes out as you consider independents and their "scandal fatigue," but it seems a bit ominous on the impeachment front. polling-wise.

But is there hope that there are more shoes to drop?  Like one of Rudy's people wants to testify that Nunes was in on it all now?  

I'm not too fussed with the drop in polling among independents about impeachment. I think it's just a process issue, in that the average voter doesn't really understand the difference between impeachment and an impeachment inquiry. Plus, holidays are coming up, as well as finals, people's busy times at work etc. I predict a pretty big bump in interest among independents once we get past the holidays and Democrats actually vote on articles of impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...

assume one of the more radical democrats like Warren wins the 2020 election.  Given the anti-Trump sentiment, this is at least possible.

also assume the democratic party retains control of the house, and through a minor (but not altogether implausible) miracle wins the slightest of majorities in the senate.  

Given the leading democratic candidates ages, I figure said POTUS will be a one term president.  (I regard a certain mayor as a flash in the pan).

There are also entrenched interests, republican and democratic to consider - but those interests have to pay at least lip service to growing grassroots anger.

So, given the above, what might a president Warren realistically accomplish?  My take:

Taxes: A straight out wealth tax isn't going to fly.  Upping the rate for the topmost income bracket...maybe.  A capitol gains tax is probably doable. A steep estate tax could likely pass.  I'd like to see stock buybacks banned, and aggressive measures taken against profits stashed in overseas accounts...but while they might pass, it'd be hell's own fight.  

 

Immigration: Trump, Nunes, and other prominent loudmouths denouncing illegal immigration are or were dependent on such to make their businesses work.  Maybe a president Warren could take a somewhat more civil leaf from Trump here: call these people into the white house,  and offer a deal - they get part of their wall as a SOP, but in exchange they support DACA with a path to citizenship - or THEIR properties get targeted for ICE raids...complete with arrests of the managers that answer directly to these congresspeople.  

 

Healthcare.  Medicare for all isn't going to fly.  The ACA could be put on solid financial footing, and some sort of public option could be incorporated, but single payer isn't going to happen.  Good shot of getting Medicaid/Medicare able to legally hardball negotiate with medical providers and some sort of price controls on prescription drugs.

 

Global Climate Change.  Hardball again.  Red states have been hit increasingly hard by storms and events directly linked to climate change in recent years.  So, have Warren call these congresspeople (public climate change deniers all) into the oval office and tell them they either support at least some measures or their FEMA funding takes a giant hit when the next disaster hits.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Given the leading democratic candidates ages, I figure said POTUS will be a one term president.  (I regard a certain mayor as a flash in the pan).

Warren may be much older (70) than she seems, but there's no reason to think she couldn't serve two terms.

In other news, America kept not asking, and they got exactly what they didn't want:  More Rudy on FNC.  Looks like he's still in top form despite the rust - his politically damaging WAR makes Mike Trout blush.

The coup de grace is around the 1:30-1:35 mark when he derisively refers to his "hopefully soon to be ex-wife."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Warren may be much older (70) than she seems, but there's no reason to think she couldn't serve two terms.

Yeah, at the end of her second term she'd be about the same age as Bernie or Biden would be at the start of their first. And women tend to live longer anyway. I consider her age to be a concern, but not disqualifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Okay...

assume one of the more radical democrats like Warren wins the 2020 election.  Given the anti-Trump sentiment, this is at least possible.

Warren is radical? I'm not sure I accept that premise.

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

or THEIR properties get targeted for ICE raids...complete with arrests of the managers that answer directly to these congresspeople.  

 

Responsibility should lie with the owner not his employees/managers, why not arrest the culprit instead of their fallguy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gorn said:

What I've been wondering ever since Rudebud sent the message via faux, "...the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s 4 decade monetizing of his office.”", why, if he has forty -- 40! -- YEARS of evidence of Biden political-financial shenanigans it's in his gdd safe and he didn't make moves to remove Joe from office for law-breaking, like, o, maybe 39 years ago.  He claimed he's done in the mafia and knows how to do all this, while calling the Dems the mafia, but he's the one making gangster threats.

Evidently vast segments of the US population -- as well as the so-called responsible media -- are so ignorant and incapable of thinking that they can't even think about this, instead swallowing the constant feed of bs whole and regurgitating it at the Dairy Queens, cafes and Thanksgiving dinner tables throughout the nation.  The media just repeats this shyte, without analysis or comment, as if there is any substance there.

Feh.  I have no respect left for the average voter of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Bloomberg has officially entered the Democratic primary:

 
Quote
To kick start his campaign, Bloomberg has placed at least $37 million worth of television advertising over the next two weeks, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG.

...

Because of his late entry, aides to the former mayor have said he won't compete in the first four voting contests, in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Instead, Bloomberg is staking his chances on an unconventional strategy of building support in the states that hold primaries on March 3, also known as Super Tuesday.

It's a strategy that has never been successful in Democratic presidential politics. Party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have publicly expressed disappointment with Bloomberg's decision.

Unlike most billionaires, he can actually fund a credible campaign entirely on his own and barely impact his finances (his net worth is more than $50B), but as the article points out, the strategy of skipping the early states has never worked before and it's not likely to work for a billionaire in the current ideological climate of the Democratic party. I wonder if he's hedging his bets: if someone who wants to implement a wealth tax appears to be winning the Democratic primary, he can always use the groundwork his ads have laid for a third party run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Evidently vast segments of the US population -- as well as the so-called responsible media -- are so ignorant and incapable of thinking that they can't even think about this, instead swallowing the constant feed of bs whole and regurgitating it at the Dairy Queens, cafes and Thanksgiving dinner tables throughout the nation.  The media just repeats this shyte, without analysis or comment, as if there is any substance there.

Feh.  I have no respect left for the average voter of this country.

Here's the dirty secret that will make you feel a bit worse: the average voter of this country hasn't changed a bit. What has changed is the people willing to run and the character of the people in government. We didn't realize how much the actual functioning of the system relied on the politicians and people running the system to have somewhat reasonable morals and somewhat reasonable restraint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2019 at 2:49 AM, DMC said:

Try winning the Democratic primary with that message.  Looks like Bloomberg's gonna try and fail and waste a ton of money doing just that.  I don't think anyone here is saying you need to "hold out for a regime."  That totally misses the point.  It's about connecting favorable politics to instituting change.  Show me numbers that "moving to the progressive tax system of the past" is gonna be something that's popular and motivating (i.e. salient), and we're good.

Also, again, characterizing it as "an enormous Constitutional barrier" is a gross exaggeration.  It's only a huge barrier because of the ideological composition of the courts.

Well, I guess at least he'll be redistributing some of his wealth. Though probably no to the poor and working poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2019 at 1:37 PM, Triskele said:

This article (Vanity Fair, limited clicks) might make you want to gouge your eyes out as you consider independents and their "scandal fatigue," but it seems a bit ominous on the impeachment front. polling-wise.

But is there hope that there are more shoes to drop?  Like one of Rudy's people wants to testify that Nunes was in on it all now?  

I have difficulty imagining anything that would shake support for Trump much below 40%, no matter how well documented and how vile and illegal.  When the news of the Ukraine call came out, I saw a lot of hints from the GOP leadership that they were prepared to throw Trump under the bus if it would mean avoiding disaster in 2020.  What never materialized was any meaningful weakening of Trump's support.  Its clear that he can do whatever he wants, lie however badly and blatantly that he wants and no portion of that 38% or so that is his base is going to leave the fold.  Without some erosion of support, there was no need to abandon him and the GOP has fallen back into lock-step behind Trump.     What troubles me is that if Trump looses the election and claims, however transparently false, that it was stolen, 40% of the country could well believe him no matter how lacking in evidence his claims. And I'm not sure the Union would survive that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davos said:

What troubles me is that if Trump looses the election and claims, however transparently false, that it was stolen, 40% of the country could well believe him no matter how lacking in evidence his claims. And I'm not sure the Union would survive that. 

This only occurred to you now?  It's part of the strategy all along, and quickly spawned the sense that he's never going to have to leave, that he shouldn't leave -- also cannot dare to leave -- at least not voluntarily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

What troubles me is that if Trump looses the election and claims, however transparently false, that it was stolen, 40% of the country could well believe him no matter how lacking in evidence his claims. And I'm not sure the Union would survive that

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Disliking the outcome of an election is not the same as not accepting it.  The former is represented by political opposition.  The latter by militant resistance to a normal transfer of power.

The latter is much much worse than the former.

I don't know anyone personally or read/seen anything mainstream that suggests that anyone doesn't "accept" the last election. It was legally legitimate despite very credible attacks that benefited, but we're not 100% proved to be coordinated, with the winning candidate and current administration. To suggest otherwise is silly.

 

Eta- electoral college arguments aside. The legality is clear though absurd from a point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Well for the last three years you're the ones who haven't accepted the outcome of an election, now you're imagining that Trump was made in your own image.

OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT WE'VE BEEN THE MONSTERS ALL ALONG

HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY WANT TO OVERTURN THE ELECTORAL WILL OF 63 MILLION PEOPLE WHEN ONLY 66 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE OTHER PERSON

I'M MELLLLTINIG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...