Jump to content

US Politics: Turkeys Available Here


DMC
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Trumps competence was not the issue for Republicans.

I never said it was.  We are comparing the expected competence of a Trump 2.0 administration vs Desantis, and I think that Desantis would be clearly more competant.  That is all. 

Really everything else you said is a rebuttal to something I did not say.  I even mentioned the opposite, "If Trump runs, he'll almost assuredly win the primary" and that is true whether Desantis runs or not.  And I think Desantis knows this, and will not run unless he thinks Trump is going to sit out.  Trump will do his "will he or won't he" dance for as long as he can because it will be like a months long cock-tease for him.  It's even possible he'll do it so long that Desantis has to commit one way or another, and that's really the only scenario I could see where Desantis actually runs against Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HoodedCrow said:

DeSantis got a government worker fired because she didn’t want to change the Covid stats.

Now that's the kind of competence that Republicans like to see! Trump kept trying to do that but he kept failing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former Neo-nazi is now working in a high ranking counter terrorism position at the DOJ.  Really have to wonder how many guys like this are spread through law enforcement in this country.  The real Deep State.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/11/19/2065233/-Ex-skinhead-with-ties-to-neo-Nazi-terrorists-now-holds-sensitive-DOJ-counterterrorism-position

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ran said:

It was not an illegal firearm according to the laws of Wisconsin.

I was not clear.  I was referring to his age, not the firearm itself.  In the Coffee case you linked, the guy was in his own home.  He was not brandishing the weapon in the street.  That makes the difference to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Do we think the big SALT cap increase is going to survive and make it to Biden's desk in the BBB bill?

 

Scuttlebutt is that something will be in the final bill.  It might be something that phases out at $400,000 or $500,000 of income, or it might be what is in the bill now.

NJ/NY/PA/CA really need to bring something like this home.  I get the optics that it benefits people that are already comparatively wealthy BUT:

1.  Combined top NYC marginal rate will be well over 60%.  You say “fine”, but the people that this will hammer are, in fact, quite mobile, particularly post-pandemic.  There is a significant comparative advantage to being in TX, FLA, or even, say, a VA or MA.  The representatives in these states need to be mindful of potential erosion of their tax bases, and also the ability of R candidates to use this as a wedge issue in marginal districts.  

2.  High tax states lose on the balance of payments vis a vis federal dollars.  Part of that is that they provide a number of services from their own budgets that in other states are provided (less well) with federal dollars.

3.  Without the deduction, I do think that the high tax states will, in fact, be under tremendous pressure to cut taxes to stay competitive.  This, of course, is self-defeating, but I think it will occur. It’s one thing to raise the national rate that is generally applicable to everyone. The problem with state and local rates is that they are just that, state and local. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalsandra said:

depressing turnout in dems. 

Would that be in 2018, which had the highest midterm turnout since 1914 and the Dems won by 9, or in 2020, which had the highest presidential turnout since 1908 and the Dems won by four and a half?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Would that be in 2018, which had the highest midterm turnout since 1914 and the Dems won by 9, or in 2020, which had the highest presidential turnout since 1908 and the Dems won by four and a half?

The dems won by 4 1/2? That's an interesting way to look at it.

I was talking more about things like the election blocking in various ways. 2020 is an aberration in a lot of ways that cannot be particularly put at the feet of Trump (and as it turned out, more turnout favored Republicans more than dems!). I was also talking about senate races, which appeared to favor republicans over dems in general, and in doing things like reducing overall dem turnout in various urban areas in 2021 compared to 2020. 

Mostly, it's probably not about Trump per se, it's about the various voter suppression rules and gerrymandering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, litechick said:

I was not clear.  I was referring to his age, not the firearm itself.  In the Coffee case you linked, the guy was in his own home.  He was not brandishing the weapon in the street.  That makes the difference to me.

"Brandishing" is when you threaten somebody with your weapon, not when you are merely holding it. While the prosecutor presented rumors that Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at people, there is no solid evidence that he did. He was also not charged with that crime.

Edited by dbergkvist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

The dems won by 4 1/2? That's an interesting way to look at it.

Joe Biden, the Dem nominee, beat Donald Trump by four and a half points yes.  That's the obvious and really only way to look at it if we're talking about whether Trump depresses or suppresses Dem turnout.

11 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

and as it turned out, more turnout favored Republicans more than dems!

You could say the increased turnout favored GOP Congressional candidates vis-a-vis Trump, but again, that says nothing good about Trump depressing Dem turnout in a presidential race where they are facing Trump.

The notion Trump depressed Dem turnout is just simply wrong.  Like, the purest form of wrongness.  Fishscale wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Joe Biden, the Dem nominee, beat Donald Trump by four and a half points yes.  That's the obvious and really only way to look at it if we're talking about whether Trump depresses or suppresses Dem turnout.

Ah. I don't think that really matters. Do you? Caring about, say, the turnout in California and getting tons of votes there doesn't actually materially affect anything. 

To me, the more interesting thing was that in general polling was inaccurate by about -7 towards Trump and away from Biden and Dems across the board, and that specifically was as a proportion higher in urban areas. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

You could say the increased turnout favored GOP Congressional candidates vis-a-vis Trump, but again, that says nothing good about Trump depressing Dem turnout in a presidential race where they are facing Trump.

The notion Trump depressed Dem turnout is just simply wrong.  Like, the purest form of wrongness.  Fishscale wrong.

k, good talk champ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalsandra said:

Ah. I don't think that really matters. Do you? Caring about, say, the turnout in California and getting tons of votes there doesn't actually materially affect anything. 

To me, the more interesting thing was that in general polling was inaccurate by about -7 towards Trump and away from Biden and Dems across the board, and that specifically was as a proportion higher in urban areas. 

Well, quite the mental gymnast are you.  So it's not turnout because it happened in blue states, or it's about the electoral college, which Biden still won 306-232.  Or it's about polling errors, because that's how turnout is measured.  Or it's only in urban areas, because it's not like there's a ton of those in every competitive state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to get less snarky, here's an example of what I'm talking about:

 

Quote

Against this backdrop, Democratic leaders’ expectations of additional gains in 2020 rested on improbable assumptions. With President Trump at the top of the ticket, Republican turnout for House races was bound to increase significantly over the depressed levels of 2018. Although Democrats increased their total House votes by an estimated 16.8 million over 2018, Republicans did better, gaining an estimated 21.9 million. The Democrats’ popular vote margin in House races fell by more than half, from 8.6% to an estimated 3%. Given these results, Democrats did well to hold their seat loss to 13.

The second explanation for the House results is even more straightforward. The total vote cast for Republican House candidates in 2020 was 1.4 million less than for President Trump, while the total vote cast for Democratic House candidates fell short of Joe Biden’s total by 3.9 million. This helps explain why Biden’s margin over Trump was 1.5 percentage points larger than House Democrats’ advantage over House Republicans. This down-ballot shortfall made it harder for Democrats to win closely contested contests.

Sorry I wasn't clearer; what I'm talking about is a relative depression. Perhaps it's better to say that Trump increases turnout significantly more than the average Republican and doesn't depress Dem turnout, but the result is basically the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing regarding this whole "crossing state lines" narrative -

Crossing state lines with a non NFA rifle, ie the type of rifle Rittenhouse used, is NOT illegal.  So even if he HAD crossed state lines with the rifle, he wouldn't have been breaking the law (he obviously did NOT bring the rifle from one state to the other anyway).  If you have a concealed weapons permit for handguns, yes, there are states which do not recognize one another's permits through reciprocity (and states that don't have CCW really much at all), and then crossing state lines "MAY" have been an issue, but again, Rittenhouse had a rifle, not a handgun.

 

Quote

A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.

Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.

Funny how some who are so bent on "removing borders", and essentially already have on the Southern border of the USA, are creating false concerns about borders within the USA itself.  

 

 

Edited by SerHaHa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Well, quite the mental gymnast are you.  So it's not turnout because it happened in blue states,

When you're talking about how it affects actual wins of seats? Yeah, that turnout does not matter in the least. 

Just now, DMC said:

or it's about the electoral college, which Biden still won 306-232. 

By a total of 47000 votes.

Just now, DMC said:

Or it's about polling errors, because that's how turnout is measured.  Or it's only in urban areas, because it's not like there's a ton of those in every competitive state.

Polling errors are a way to measure some of this failure, especially in some of the more important electoral states. And it's a pretty big deal to depress in urban areas because urban areas tend to be more Dem-leaning, which again - a big problem for dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Sorry I wasn't clearer; what I'm talking about is a relative depression. Perhaps it's better to say that Trump increases turnout significantly more than the average Republican and doesn't depress Dem turnout, but the result is basically the same. 

Sorry I'll lay off the snark.  But again, what you're pointing out is obviously true, but it only illustrates that Trump ran worse than GOP Congressional candidates in the same election.  Which is undoubtedly a bad indicator for Trump's hopes of getting elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Polling errors are a way to measure some of this failure, especially in some of the more important electoral states. And it's a pretty big deal to depress in urban areas because urban areas tend to be more Dem-leaning, which again - a big problem for dems.

Ok, first of all you were exaggerating the polling error in the previous post.  Biden was supposed to win by ~7 and he won by 4 and a half.  That's not a "-7 towards Trump," it's a minus two and a half. 

Second, I thought you were saying above that Dems' increased turnout was isolated to urban areas by saying "that specifically was as a proportion higher in urban areas."  Now you're saying Dem turnout was depressed in urban areas in 2020?  You're gonna have to show me some evidence on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Scuttlebutt is that something will be in the final bill.  It might be something that phases out at $400,000 or $500,000 of income, or it might be what is in the bill now.

NJ/NY/PA/CA really need to bring something like this home.  I get the optics that it benefits people that are already comparatively wealthy BUT:

1.  Combined top NYC marginal rate will be well over 60%.  You say “fine”, but the people that this will hammer are, in fact, quite mobile, particularly post-pandemic.  There is a significant comparative advantage to being in TX, FLA, or even, say, a VA or MA.  The representatives in these states need to be mindful of potential erosion of their tax bases, and also the ability of R candidates to use this as a wedge issue in marginal districts.  

2.  High tax states lose on the balance of payments vis a vis federal dollars.  Part of that is that they provide a number of services from their own budgets that in other states are provided (less well) with federal dollars.

3.  Without the deduction, I do think that the high tax states will, in fact, be under tremendous pressure to cut taxes to stay competitive.  This, of course, is self-defeating, but I think it will occur. It’s one thing to raise the national rate that is generally applicable to everyone. The problem with state and local rates is that they are just that, state and local. 

I'm sure R candidates will use this as a wedge issue no matter what, it's either going to be that Dems are chasing the upper class to more tax-friendly locations or that they are giving a massive tax cut to the people already doing the best. 

I suppose the $400k phaseout would be a decent compromise if some states really think there would be some kind of mass exodus.

It is kind of funny listening to the rhetoric around this (coming from DNC media types) though framing people making $400k a year as middle class when a year ago they were telling us that the stimulus checks need to phase out at $75k.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

I suppose the $400k phaseout would be a decent compromise if some states really think there would be some kind of mass exodus.

Yeah this really needs to happen.  It's ridiculous that GOP MCs are already running on the bill giving billions of tax breaks to millionaires.  They're not gonna stop saying it, and I understand the cap has to be raised in some fashion for the bill to pass, but at least let's make sure they're lying when they say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...