Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:30 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2501 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
A little bit on why the Media is hating on Tulsi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K22fnFk5kq8

Basically Harris as the anointed one as the identity politics candidate but they don't want to accept Tulsi who ticks the same boxes is equally, because her politics isn't the media establishment which is essentially pro-war/pro big military-industrial complex and pro-wall street and pro-big company and so see her as the Harris. Remember that New York Times editor on the Joe Rogan who called Tulsi an Assad Toady and didn't even know the meaning of the word? That's typical of the establishment press, they just don't research anything these days and repeat establishment points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
More journalists don't pay attention to facts:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... or-granted

"A Kamala Harris presidency would be ineffectual for the demographic that will likely comprise much of her base: black women"

Has this author not read the poll ratings, Harris has 1% support with the black community compared with other Dem candidates and it's been sinking. She's lose black voters compared with Biden or Bernie FFS.

Also a ling piece how Harris is basically just a rich persons identity politics puppet. A profile on how she came to where she is here:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ite-227611


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10184
Quote:
Remember that New York Times editor on the Joe Rogan who called Tulsi an Assad Toady and didn't even know the meaning of the word? That's typical of the establishment press, they just don't research anything these days and repeat establishment points.


Watching that clip never gets old: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU&t=1m31s

Weiss attended a $30000 a year private high school though so what do you expect? She has nothing in common with people whose friends and relatives enlist and get sent to fight on the front lines in pointless wars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
A good video on the Pro-Clinton anti-Bernie bias. This reporter, Krystal Ball, mentions how when she did an critical of Hilary piece in the Dem primary's for 2016 on MSNBC she was leaned on and told she "could" say what she wants, but anything critical of Clinton would have to be approved first by the president of the corporation in future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Ia02L1qQo

She also goes into the class bias in news corporations and how they dislike working class voices. How on a daily basis creates this system of reinforcement. It isn't even about their viewers as what they like to pressure journalists to report is not related to what the public is or isn't interested in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10184
As that video mentions Bernie is leading in NH now (+6 :shock:) and the Economist poll out today has Biden’s national lead down to 1 point (from 9 points a month ago).

Also that Rasmussen poll that Trump likes to quote now has him at -9 approval...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10184
Quote:
Economist/YouGov Poll changes in just one week:

BIDEN: down 2
BERNIE: up 3

Great news for Biden.


https://mobile.twitter.com/SilERabbit/s ... 8557731840

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5591
Bowens wrote:
Quote:
Economist/YouGov Poll changes in just one week:

BIDEN: down 2
BERNIE: up 3

Great news for Biden.


https://mobile.twitter.com/SilERabbit/s ... 8557731840

:lol:



:lol: :lol: :lol: What the actual fcuk???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10184
It’s a parody account of MSM analysis. Usually pretty funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5591
Bowens wrote:
It’s a parody account of MSM analysis. Usually pretty funny.


Yeah read the comments and realised that. Still, not far off the mark eh. Like I mentioned a few pages back, the only thing the MSM seems to have taken away from Bernie's interview with Rogan was aliens. Real SMH stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10184
Bowens wrote:
Also that Rasmussen poll that Trump likes to quote now has him at -9 approval...


The number of people who strongly approve is at a 16 month low btw.

This whole “go back to where you came from” thing is obviously working out well for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 2519
Location: Boston
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
It’s a parody account of MSM analysis. Usually pretty funny.


Yeah read the comments and realised that. Still, not far off the mark eh. Like I mentioned a few pages back, the only thing the MSM seems to have taken away from Bernie's interview with Rogan was aliens. Real SMH stuff.


That's a shame, but as someone who generally avoids the media at all costs, I'm not surprised.

It was a decent interview. Rogan's actually fairly good at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 2519
Location: Boston
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5591
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.


Yep. It really should just be Biden, Sanders, Warren running for POTUS at this stage. Maybe the others can have their own thing to see who'll be the running mate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7907
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.


Mate this is now the oddest situation in the history of world democracies. Congratulations to your country and best of luck with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31630
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.


Marianne is not delusional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3179
Location: le Bayou
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.

Seeing what happened after W (a black guy with an arabic name that became the Prez) they all think that it's their chance, now or never.
Big egos, they are politicians after all, but they are so far away from the issues that do matter to a lot of voters, the same issues that put DT in the Oval Office.

What do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14284
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.


Read an article about John Delaney the other day, I was pretty impressed to read that he had visited every single county in Iowa. He's really trying to position himself as the voice of moderation, but can't see it gaining ground. Not sure why he's bothering, possibly to raise profile ahead of something else.

Also the Warren remark causing his Wikipedia death was pretty funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:31 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2691
lexpat wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.

Seeing what happened after W (a black guy with an arabic name that became the Prez) they all think that it's their chance, now or never.
Big egos, they are politicians after all, but they are so far away from the issues that do matter to a lot of voters, the same issues that put DT in the Oval Office.

What do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard ?


We all love her unconditionally.
Especially DT.
I still think she makes the next debate.
That NH poll has her at 5% and I think it qualifies.
Two more polls and she’s in. (AFAIK).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3990
lexpat wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.

Seeing what happened after W (a black guy with an arabic name that became the Prez) they all think that it's their chance, now or never.
Big egos, they are politicians after all, but they are so far away from the issues that do matter to a lot of voters, the same issues that put DT in the Oval Office.

What do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard ?

She is a goddess and too good for the Yanks, IMO.
They don't deserve her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Ewinkum wrote:
lexpat wrote:
fonzeee wrote:
Looking at the polls though, you have 15 delusional chumps amounting to 12% of the support. Some of these people need to start dropping out.

Seeing what happened after W (a black guy with an arabic name that became the Prez) they all think that it's their chance, now or never.
Big egos, they are politicians after all, but they are so far away from the issues that do matter to a lot of voters, the same issues that put DT in the Oval Office.

What do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard ?


We all love her unconditionally.
Especially DT.

I still think she makes the next debate.
That NH poll has her at 5% and I think it qualifies.
Two more polls and she’s in. (AFAIK).


Naughty! :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5742
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:59 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37739
Bowens wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Also that Rasmussen poll that Trump likes to quote now has him at -9 approval...


The number of people who strongly approve is at a 16 month low btw.

This whole “go back to where you came from” thing is obviously working out well for him.


Bit like the way the HRC "deplorables" comment from 2016 did crucial damage to her campaign.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
It’s a parody account of MSM analysis. Usually pretty funny.


Yeah read the comments and realised that. Still, not far off the mark eh. Like I mentioned a few pages back, the only thing the MSM seems to have taken away from Bernie's interview with Rogan was aliens. Real SMH stuff.


On that note, I like this tweet form that comedy account:

Nate's Liver 🍩
@SilERabbit
·
Aug 13
Why is nobody talking about the candidate's food choices in Iowa?

BIDEN: ice cream
BOOKER: deep-fried PBJ
KAMALA: pork chop
YANG: turkey leg
TULSI: deep fried avocado
WARREN: corn dog
BERNIE: meat shaped into male genitalia, battered, and fried on a stick to flaunt his misogyny


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5591
eldanielfire wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
It’s a parody account of MSM analysis. Usually pretty funny.


Yeah read the comments and realised that. Still, not far off the mark eh. Like I mentioned a few pages back, the only thing the MSM seems to have taken away from Bernie's interview with Rogan was aliens. Real SMH stuff.


On that note, I like this tweet form that comedy account:

Nate's Liver 🍩
@SilERabbit
·
Aug 13
Why is nobody talking about the candidate's food choices in Iowa?

BIDEN: ice cream
BOOKER: deep-fried PBJ
KAMALA: pork chop
YANG: turkey leg
TULSI: deep fried avocado
WARREN: corn dog
BERNIE: meat shaped into male genitalia, battered, and fried on a stick to flaunt his misogyny



:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2292
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


If it's VAT then it doesn't matter, it'll be taxed based on sales. A.I if you sell stuff in America you'll pay VAT in America, doesn't matter if he moves to Mars. Also at this point, I think most people just want to stick it to the rich rather than find an actual solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:03 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37739
FullbackAce wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


If it's VAT then it doesn't matter, it'll be taxed based on sales. A.I if you sell stuff in America you'll pay VAT in America, doesn't matter if he moves to Mars. Also at this point, I think most people just want to stick it to the rich rather than find an actual solution.


Ensuring the rich pay their fair share of tax (or as you put it, sticking it to the rich) is one component of an actual solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2292
Kiwias wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


If it's VAT then it doesn't matter, it'll be taxed based on sales. A.I if you sell stuff in America you'll pay VAT in America, doesn't matter if he moves to Mars. Also at this point, I think most people just want to stick it to the rich rather than find an actual solution.


Ensuring the rich pay their fair share of tax (or as you put it, sticking it to the rich) is one component of an actual solution.
Definitely. The corruption and lobbyism have pushed people to the point where they'll take anything but the status quo regarding the wealth gap. If they have to burn everything down in the process then so be it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2100
I really don't understand the appeal of Warren. She comes across poorly imo. Is just a super weak version of Bernie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3990
Sensible Stephen wrote:
I really don't understand the appeal of Warren. She comes across poorly imo. Is just a super weak version of Bernie.

Maybe because she hasn't labelled herself as a socialist?
It seems the average American equates that term with something close to Satanism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Kiwias wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


If it's VAT then it doesn't matter, it'll be taxed based on sales. A.I if you sell stuff in America you'll pay VAT in America, doesn't matter if he moves to Mars. Also at this point, I think most people just want to stick it to the rich rather than find an actual solution.


Ensuring the rich pay their fair share of tax (or as you put it, sticking it to the rich) is one component of an actual solution.


I agree. However due to decades of increased globalisation it's rather hard to do so. The rich are more mobile than ever and cases economic flight is a real fear, you can't tax them more when they leave or take their assets elsewhere. Likewise the possibility of fewer jobs or slower economic growth is an issue and it's harder to have a good economy when a country has a reputation as anti-business or anti-rich. Also a government will never get a pass for bad economic growth, even from the left, especially as that situation damages the middle classes and poor the most.

Like I said above look at Francois Hollande's tax on millionaires a few years ago. It all sounded positive until France's millionaires moved their assets in other EU countries and the state took in 12 Billion less, which meant less for public services. Hollande then became the least popular French leader ever I think (by whatever measure they do it by) and his party was wiped out next election, for the current president who is of course, ironically, a former banker.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley ... 637fe55df2

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... t-supertax

I'm not sure what the solution is, but straight forward taxing the super rich more isn't it. Considering where new billionaires come from, I do believe that it might be worth taxing goods brought online and finding ways to separately tax social media and big tech companies who are the ones most under underfunded. Perhaps tax advertising online or the use of servers above a certain capacity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Sensible Stephen wrote:
I really don't understand the appeal of Warren. She comes across poorly imo. Is just a super weak version of Bernie.


She can argue certain areas very well. But elsewhere, like her attempts to launch her campaign; "Look I'm having a beer", "I did a DNA test" she seems utterly false. However she was anointed by the media as an acceptable Dem establishment candidate and as we know, what interests and excites the Mainstream media has little to no bearing on what the masses like or want or even what the real life narrative actually is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8382
Location: Indiana
FullbackAce wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Listed to Bernie on JRE and a then Yang on H3. Both claim that taxing Bezos is the road to prosperity and will pay for everything. :roll: Yang sounds better in sound bites than a 1 hr talk.


I've noticed Yang doesn't really move on when he's presented with criticisms of his UBI ideas. He re-presents the same statements and assumptions again on his next platform. He relies on a lot of assumptions, many of which are fairly disputed and say ignore the conclusions say Finlands recent UBI test showed so far. He ignores the stuff like UBI doesn't get people to start gaining new skils and enter new jobs and thus it does not increase economic growth. It also assumes people's employment ill be profitable, It doesn't take into account economic flight if you tax billionaires more (as Francois Hollande showed when he taxed millionaires years ago), that you'd realistically have to stop immigration, that UBI infulenced inflation might wipe out the benefits, I also doubt it will reduce bureaucracy as some people will always need extra benefits (Disabled for example .

I'm pro UBI or something similar in principle, but I've yet to be convinced by any model of it. I hope Yang can stay around to keep promoting the idea.


If it's VAT then it doesn't matter, it'll be taxed based on sales. A.I if you sell stuff in America you'll pay VAT in America, doesn't matter if he moves to Mars. Also at this point, I think most people just want to stick it to the rich rather than find an actual solution.


Ensuring the rich pay their fair share of tax (or as you put it, sticking it to the rich) is one component of an actual solution.
Definitely. The corruption and lobbyism have pushed people to the point where they'll take anything but the status quo regarding the wealth gap. If they have to burn everything down in the process then so be it.


Explains the 2016 election in a nutshell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8382
Location: Indiana
eldanielfire wrote:
Like I said above look at Francois Hollande's tax on millionaires a few years ago. It all sounded positive until France's millionaires moved their assets in other EU countries and the state took in 12 Billion less, which meant less for public services. Hollande then became the least popular French leader ever I think (by whatever measure they do it by) and his party was wiped out next election, for the current president who is of course, ironically, a former banker.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley ... 637fe55df2

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... t-supertax

I'm not sure what the solution is, but straight forward taxing the super rich more isn't it. Considering where new billionaires come from, I do believe that it might be worth taxing goods brought online and finding ways to separately tax social media and big tech companies who are the ones most under underfunded. Perhaps tax advertising online or the use of servers above a certain capacity.


I read once some years ago one of the richest men in New Jersey changed his residence from there to Florida, where there's no state income tax. Not a bullshit paper move, he legitimately moved from New Jersey to Florida, and either he or the media made it well-publicized. This made news because 1.) obviously the guy was going to pay a lot less state taxes, and 2.) he was so rich and New Jersey's tax rates were so progressive because it's been a Democrat-ran state for a long time, that this one man moving was going to have an outsized influence on the state's next budget.

As far as multinationals, computers and the fact in 5 seconds you can move money from London to the British Virgin Islands have completely changed the world of taxation. The small mostly Caribbean states that benefit from this are going to be dragged kicking and screaming but the big states of the world I think need to gang up together and force reform. They effectively ganged up together and forced Switzerland, Liechtenstein, etc. to give up on total banking secrecy to combat money laundering and of course tax havens, that's only in the past decade.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3990
It's a big club sharing the same agents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdunhAkRJtU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9712
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Reason mAg ran an excellent critique of Gabbard not long ago.

https://reason.com/2019/08/05/tulsi-gab ... pro-peace/

Quote:
Gabbard purports to be a dove when it comes to wars of regime change. But like Trump, she is a self-avowed hawk on Islamic terrorism. She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as "Islamic terrorists."

But the more striking similarity between her and Trump is that she too has no qualms about courting dictators if they advance her cause, no matter the consequences for others. Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America's struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he'd orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.

But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi's militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence—not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods. Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith, has become close to Modi, presenting him with her personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu holy book) when she visited him in 2014, 12 years after one of the worst massacres of Muslims was committed by thugs from his own party in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at that time.

All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard's foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7907
Deadtigers wrote:
Reason mAg ran an excellent critique of Gabbard not long ago.

https://reason.com/2019/08/05/tulsi-gab ... pro-peace/

Quote:
Gabbard purports to be a dove when it comes to wars of regime change. But like Trump, she is a self-avowed hawk on Islamic terrorism. She repeatedly slammed President Barack Obama for shying away from referring to Al Qaeda and ISIS as "Islamic terrorists."

But the more striking similarity between her and Trump is that she too has no qualms about courting dictators if they advance her cause, no matter the consequences for others. Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people; she aimed to enlist him in America's struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he'd orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.

But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi's militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence—not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods. Yet Gabbard, who, like me, was raised in the Hindu faith, has become close to Modi, presenting him with her personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu holy book) when she visited him in 2014, 12 years after one of the worst massacres of Muslims was committed by thugs from his own party in the state of Gujarat, where he was chief minister at that time.

All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard's foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.


:lol: The cad!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9712
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
sonic_attack wrote:
I watched that and didn't think he did that great. Pretty casual interview which makes a nice change and a nice enough guy.

When asked about guns though - No plan, just a rehash of waffle. Wishy-washy waffle. "It's a big problem" "Oh the mental health of the country" "Oh woe is us". It was great that he was honest enough to say he doesn't know, but to be asked and be all "Um ahh, Um ahh" and rattle off some waffle on the fly just to say a bunch of words in reply, shows it's not really been given a whole lot of thought.


Now you gone and done it. The Bernard Brothers are gonna get you.

Truthfully, I have pointed it out several times, he is an ideas guy with no org or operational follow through. That is why he bungled his own wage program for his staff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9712
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bokkom wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:
I watched that and didn't think he did that great. Pretty casual interview which makes a nice change and a nice enough guy.

When asked about guns though - No plan, just a rehash of waffle. Wishy-washy waffle. "It's a big problem" "Oh the mental health of the country" "Oh woe is us". It was great that he was honest enough to say he doesn't know, but to be asked and be all "Um ahh, Um ahh" and rattle off some waffle on the fly just to say a bunch of words in reply, shows it's not really been given a whole lot of thought.

But aren't those the really tough questions after all?
Who else in the USA today can give quick answers to those?
It is obvious Bernie sees those issues as the symptoms of a broken society, mainly because of financial hardships and general despair.


You are so full of it! Cause he is your guy, you have all this deep thought. If that was Biden or Hillary or Harris with a mealy mouthed response you would have your f**king knives out. At least Flags admits his bias colors his views.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9712
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
FullbackAce wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:


Just like Trump to some extent I dont think Biden is "racist" but being an ancient old white man, he must have some interesting perceptions about non-white folk. My question is, why is the Bern different?

He always was a rebel against the system. Isn't there a photo of him getting arrested at a civil rights protest in the 60s?


And yet he lost the black vote in 2016. He got the kids but not their parents, aunts/uncles and grandparents. Probably has something to do with bad mouthing Obama and constantly not calling out the racism of the WWC that supported Trump.

He continues to show that his economic platform matters more than his social justice platform and that does not play well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2501 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: comets, EverReady, Ewinkum, Fat Old Git, Floppykid, Google Adsense [Bot], Kiwias, kiwigreg369, Leinsterman, RichieRich89, sunnybanana and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group