U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Loge said:

People paying more tax than they are legally obliged to? No. But voting for parties that favour high taxes comes pretty close. Focus on legal obligation is a bit of a red herring here. Those laws are made by the people subjected to them. At least that's the theory in a democracy.

No, it doesn’t.  It forces everyone, subject to the State’s monopoly on force, to pay as well.  

As Ripp pointed out there is nothing prohibiting people from voluntarily paying more than they have to.  Could you please point to any non-theocratic Nation-State where a significant portion of their tax base, to pick a number more than 30%, is derived from voluntary overpayment of taxes?

[OldGimletEye]

31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not saying “Taxation is theft”.  I’m saying that making taxation a voluntary contribution will never work long term.  I’m being pragmatic.  If we need a world wealth tax it will not work if that tax is voluntary and claiming otherwise flies in the face of existing structures.

With this I agree.  A world wealth tax probably wouldn't work either. Tax policy is likely to be the domain of nation states for quite awhile.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It's so hard to understand her political decisions.  Why wait until now? If she endorsed before SC, she would build precious goodwill for the VP slot...

Per her, she did not want to endorse until after Klobuchar and Warren had dropped out because she did not want to be putting support against women. 

[Martell Spy]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

With this I agree.  A world wealth tax probably wouldn't work either. Tax policy is likely to be the domain of nation states for quite awhile.

You could make it enforceable via the regional trade agreements that already happen. Not quite global, but it's not at the nation level, either. And taking part in the trade pact is a benefit that outweighs the sacrifice.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

You could make it enforceable via the regional trade agreements that already happen. Not quite global, but it's not at the nation level, either. And taking part in the trade pact is a benefit that outweighs the sacrifice.

We saw the Euro fail largely because people aren't quite willing to integrate fiscally with people from other countries. I doubt you are going to get a wealth tax that would be equally shared between two countries. The best bet is to let each country decide its tax policy and then have agreements with other countries about tax enforcement ie (share resources and information to catch tax cheaters).

[Martell Spy]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, it doesn’t.  It forces everyone, subject to the State’s monopoly on force, to pay as well.  

As Ripp pointed out there is nothing prohibiting people from voluntarily paying more than they have to.  Could you please point to any non-theocratic Nation-State where a significant portion of their tax base, to pick a number more than 30%, is derived from voluntary overpayment of taxes?

All sorts of people are shielded from paying at all, including rich tax evaders that our law enforcement uses soft gloves on. There are legal ways not to pay taxes. The simplest one would be to quit your job and go get a Walmart job. You can also just leave, although you'll lose benefits from staying. plus some people don't want to leave their homes or have local business contacts.

I don't disagree that the current nation-state tax enforcement method works pretty good. The gun-point metaphor is pretty extreme though. Are tax-payers being enslaved? Technically they have no choice and must cough up a share of their labor.

[Ran]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Probably because it looked very unlikely Biden was going to win the nomination for the week preceding SC.

Reporting is that Harris didn't want to endorse Biden so long as Warren and Klobuchar were still in the race, as a bit of solidarity with the women. She was always going to endorse Biden, though, that's obvious enough.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Like Trump is some great debater. He was destroyed every time by Hillary Clinton, per polling. And yet here we are.

Biden'll do fine against him.

But Trump shrugged her points off in a very trollish way that just endeared him to his base somehow. Biden's inability to complete thoughts is a much different problem. Of course, Trump has been having these moments too, but as I've searched for more evidence on it I can't find him consistently doing it. He has moments where he talks (and it's all bullshit) without stumbling all over his statements.

I understand Biden used to have a stutter and some argue it's coming back a bit in old age. That's possible and may be true. But if it doesn't feel true, then it doesn't help. I can't imagine something more surefire to scare away independent voters than the fear of a President with dementia. I guess the best thing Biden has going for him concerning this issue is that Trump may also be displaying issues that are reminiscent of dementia. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If you weren’t required by law to pay taxes with the possibility of fines and incarceration if you don’t pay would you pay taxes?  In other words if you claim people pay taxes because of the societal benefit not because of the threat of force why aren’t taxes assessed on a voluntary basis?

I would, Scot, but there were times in my life when I was young that I wouldn't have. I get your point. I think a lot of people understand the necessity of paying taxes to keep society functioning.

[Ran]

Just now, Simon Steele said:

Biden's inability to complete thoughts is a much different problem.

He does not have an inability to complete thoughts. He has a habit of switching words and sentences midstream because he's blocking on a word that makes him stutter and he works around it, sometimes in inelegent ways that messes up the syntax but not the intent.

It's not " coming back in old age", per se. It's more noticeable because he's out there on the campaign trail holding one to three public appearances a day, which means he's expanding a lot more energy and he's spending a lot more time doing the thing where stuttering happens: talking. Obviously, being older surely mean he has less energy reserves than he had 20-30 years ago, but the stories now are the exact same stories that have been around for decades regarding him and his verbal "gaffes"

Yes, this won't change when he wins the nomination and goes on to battle Trump. Does it matter? With just one person to focus on, it will be easier for him.

What does matter for me is that Sanders supporters in their desperation are now walking arm-in-arm with Trump supporters who are pitching the exact same thing about Biden. Gross, and it will not be forgotten.

 

[DMC]

How about we use the term senile rather than dementia since the latter is an actual medical condition and I don't think anyone mentioning it here is a doctor?  Like, last year I worked for a retiring/emeritus professor and she definitely wasn't "all there," some days I was even convinced she had a medical condition.  But I certainly never her asked her and never would have mentioned such suspicions to any professional third party.  Cuz I'm not a doctor.

The other thing I'll say, as someone that has to lecture for five hours on Fridays this semester, there's a tendency to fuck up when you speak publicly that often, and I'm less than half Biden's age.  Honestly guys, you try it and see how many times you sound like an idiot.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

He does not have an inability to complete thoughts. He has a habit of switching words and sentences midstream because he's blocking on a word that makes him stutter and he works around it, sometimes in inelegent ways that messes up the syntax but not the intent.

It's not " coming back in old age", per se. It's more noticeable because he's out there on the campaign trail holding one to three public appearances a day, which means he's expanding a lot more energy and he's spending a lot more time doing the thing where stuttering happens: talking. Obviously, being older surely mean he has less energy reserves than he had 20-30 years ago, but the stories now are the exact same stories that have been around for decades regarding him and his verbal "gaffes"

Yes, this won't change when he wins the nomination and goes on to battle Trump. Does it matter? With just one person to focus on, it will be easier for him.

What does matter for me is that Sanders supporters in their desperation are now walking arm-in-arm with Trump supporters who are pitching the exact same thing about Biden. Gross, and it will not be forgotten.

 

I don't think that's true at all. People are seeing some alarming things from Biden, and it has nothing to do with Trump (or desperation for Sanders, if he loses then he loses, and Biden isn't someone who inspires any confidence about November). We denied for years my dad had Alzheimer's because some of the things he was doing seemed like exaggerated tendencies he always had (not finding his wallet or keys, making jokes about stuff about his memory). Anyone who has lived through this kind of diagnosis has every right to see what's happening with Biden and be worried without being compared to a Trump voter.

I wonder sometimes if the more pragmatic, serious core of the base thinks they'll win by isolating and alienating an active and large part of their voting bloc. 

As to your other points, I've gone back and watched former Biden campaigns and speeches, and what's going on is far more significant. Whether or not its dementia, or as many analysts say it is due to his old age and losing mastery over his stutter, I don't know. But when you're asking for people to vote for something this scary, and you dismiss their concerns as being too buddy-buddy with Trump, you do nothing to help the issue with bad turnout for Biden.

The point a lot of us have brought up is a real problem. We're not being fatalistic about it, we're asking a legitimate question, "What can be done about this to not lose to Trump again?"

[Reny of Storms End]

Has anyone been following the foolishness that is happening again in Oregon? The Republicans keep walking about and denying a quorum and so nothing can be passed. They did this last year too, and won that battle as well. It appears Oregon Democrats refuse to do anything, literally anything but verbally scold their opponents. I guess this is just the new normal? Because it has effectively prevented Dems in Oregon from passing the bills they want, even while having a supermajority in both chambers. So when will Republicans start exporting this winning strategy across the country? Cause the Dems are just rolling over for it.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Reny of Storms End said:

Has anyone been following the foolishness that is happening again in Oregon?

Yeah read a couple articles about it last weekend.  Fucking ridiculous.  The important point though, is a lot of this is a feature of the fact that the Oregon constitution requires two-thirds to reach a quorum, whereas most states only require a majority.  So, the Oregon Dems can't really do anything about it (other than getting a two-thirds majority), it's just neither party ever did this before the GOP started a couple years ago.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

But when you're asking for people to vote for something this scary, and you dismiss their concerns as being too buddy-buddy with Trump, you do nothing to help the issue with bad turnout for Biden.

So if all this is just genuine concern for the health of the candidate, why aren't we talking about the candidate that is 10 months older than Biden and had a heart attack in October?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Jesse Jackson has endorsed Bernie which is great, and with him and Al Sharpton being prominent voices in the black community, I wonder how black voters outside of the south will vote for Bernie going forward. But I was looking at Bernie's endorsements and one stood out to me that has gotten relatively little play. Uwe Bolle endorsed Bernie. I mean...that seems worthy of a news cycle. Why? What is it about this strange man that we don't understand as a political being that would have him take this track in life? Will he challenge non-supporters to boxing matches for charity? And whip their asses? I would love to see him beat the shit out of Carville as he cackles at Bernie's supporters over Super Tuesday. I want Bernie to put Bolle front and center. 

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah read a couple articles about it last weekend.  Fucking ridiculous.  The important point though, is a lot of this is a feature of the fact that the Oregon constitution requires two-thirds to reach a quorum, whereas most states only require a majority.  So, the Oregon Dems can't really do anything about it (other than getting a two-thirds majority), it's just neither party ever did this before the GOP started a couple years ago.

Ah. I was wondering why the Oregon Democrats didn't just vote to deem the legislative as having a quorum; having it laid out in the state constitution explains why. I wonder if they could a ballot initiative to change the constitution without having to have the state legislature meet.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wonder if they could a ballot initiative to change the constitution without having to have the state legislature meet.

I dunno, good question.  But if they can, one would think they should get on that.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If you really believe taxation isn’t coming from the threat of force (which is any legal sanction not just threat of criminal sanction) make taxation voluntary or suggested in any Nation-State and see what happens.

Sure. Give me full power over the media and education and I'll get it done. It's no biggie, but as I said, there are requirements to make it happen.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m being pragmatic. 

Nope, you're promoting a specific vision of human nature, human society, and the social contract, all under the guise of "pragmatism."

Edit:

Quote

Could you point to a Nation-State where people regularly voluntarily pay more more tax than they are legally obligated to pay?

It seems a whopping 84% of millennials gave to non-profits in 2018 in the US. Can't be bothered to look for more data, but even I am surprised to find that high a number.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

So if all this is just genuine concern for the health of the candidate, why aren't we talking about the candidate that is 10 months older than Biden and had a heart attack in October?

I have talked about Bernie's health all the time. I've talked about it when people around here who hate him weren't talking about it anymore. It's a real concern with questions that deserved to be answered. I've long said all the nitpicking nonsense against Bernie makes no sense. His health is a big concern. People have gotten over it, so I let it go, but I don't people have grappled with this with Biden. So be fair and don't rush to judgment, please, I don't do that with you. If people voted for Warren or Mayor Pete or...Klobuchar and one of those had dominated Super Tuesday and the reason cited by voters was health of Bernie--I could not and would not fundamentally argue with that. In Bernie's case I've often posted about how important it is for him to have a good VP pick that is aligned to his beliefs because of his chances of dying (while not super high, but definitely higher than the majority of candidates) in his first term cannot be ignored. Biden's issues are similarly concerning.

If people get over it, I guess fine, but if it turns out to be true that he's suffering from dementia, is that not also an issue far more significant than Bernie's heart attack? One could potentially see a President dying in office, the other could potentially see a President with growing dementia in charge of the most powerful country in the world. For Bernie, I see a strong VP pick as being somewhat suitable to his issue, but for Biden, a strong VP pick doesn't deal with the issue that dementia is a long process, and based on how the current checks and balances are working for the significant mental issues of Trump (by trying to cover it up), I don't see this being a good thing.

So again, I ask, for those of us worried about this, what is the proposed solution for voters who are scared about this? How can we communicate the solution to voters in organizations we attend who are scared about this? It can't be "well, he's better than Trump." That's not enough.

ETA: The dismissive tone you're showing in response to this kind of tells me we're running to another defeat in November.