|
Deptfordx posted:Is this some wierd American thing, not understanding graduated taxation that is. I've heard accounts of people saying this sort of thing in America here and in other sites on numerous occasions. American dialogue about taxation is essentially, "Taxes... bad?" "Taxes BAD!" In other words, we don't really educate people about how taxes work without them kind of explicitly seeking it out, and as long as you aren't itemizing everything, tax forms are really easy to fill out each year and there's no breakdown of how or why you get or don't get a return. I personally didn't pay attention enough to care about how taxes worked until I was an adult, and since the dialogue on taxation is so loving negative, people are actually willing to entertain the notion that our tax system is literally stupid and has horrific perverse incentives at the most basic level. Look Sir Droids posted:Yes. People think all of their income is taxed at the rate the highest bracket is taxed at, even if their income doesn't come within two brackets of that bracket. I don't have specific examples, but I've heard of dumb business owners who basically set their salary at some arbitrary number just below a bracket level because they don't understand how progressive taxation works and think they'll somehow lose money if they make a dollar more. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Mar 12, 2015 |
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Has it been mentioned that you can buy a signed constitution by Rand Paul for $1,000 I appreciate the implication in the language that Rand Paul wrote the Constitution, or at least these ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I don't remember Gamestop having any anti-union propaganda. They were just pretty upfront about the whole "If you talk about pay with your peers or mention unionization at all we'll fire you" thing. Of course, Gamestop also has virtually no full time staff outside of management, so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
FireSight posted:Why do people believe that the USA is something special in gods eyes? I don't really understand it. American Exceptionalism in a religious sense I'd guess dates back to the country's founding, but as far as I know, it became a big deal as the country expanded West across North America, since a lot of the perception was good Christian pioneers versus Godless heathens. At least I remember a divine mandate being a big political justification of US expansion from history classes. I mean, I'm sure it's a very complex issue historically to try and dig in to, but I'd say the modern concept probably stems from the old school divine mandate justification, the Civil War, the hegemony shift leaving us at the top of the pile after WWII, and playing up the religious differences between the US and the USSR in Cold War propaganda. I think Americans, myself included, are indoctrinated to think that America is a nation founded on moral grounds, and some look at those morals as Christian. They'd be largely incorrect, but that's not the point. Edit: quoted the wrong post
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I hope presidential candidates pick this up as a plan Didn't Ted Cruz already call for that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:Putting aside the fact that people share rooms in contexts other than college, if someone at college says "He's my roommate", how do you know whether they share an apartment or a room? Not so clever now are you. Context. Alternatively, you could be a weirdo and ask, or who gives a poo poo. Donald Trump's presidential bid surely must be our divine punishment (or reward?) for letting the gays do their thing, right? The threat of apocalyptic doom he represents is like an unequipped but eager arsonist always loitering outside your house.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
To me McCain's campaign basically flopped once he got the nomination. Presumably once his campaign started getting support and advice from the RNC, he seemed to take a dramatic shift to the right in terms of rhetoric. I'm guessing, since it was before the Tea Party got in full swing, the primary vs general attitudes were reversed. In the primary, McCain benefited from courting moderate Republicans, and the base he was trying to motivate in the general were the bible-thumping, racist assholes, whereas nowadays the Republican Primary is more about shifting as far right as possible and then scrambling back towards sanity in the general. Seems like a losing strategy either way in the long run, cause you give the Dems a huge amount of breathing room. You'd think that, after 8 years, Republican politicians would have realized that putting your head in the sand while your party goes through an identity crisis isn't gonna turn out well. I mean, they managed to get a pretty sweet gig out of gerrymandering the hell out of state level politics, and they still get that nice old person advantage of consistent turnout in off season elections, but even that only seems to allow the party to get more and more radicalized, and not in the cool Sonic the Hedgehog kind of way. Just doesn't seem like a sound long term strategy for them or for the American people. Like, the only real acknowledgement of changing demographics is frickin' tokenism and Lindsay Graham half-heartedly being like "the Supreme Court isn't completely invalid just because they're ok with the gays." This is why I need the clown show. This is why Donald Trump needs to make it to the first debate. The legitimate possibility if these people holding the Presidency infuriates me, and while the clown show keeps me sane, the context wherein nearly half the country will probably vote for whatever imbecile makes it through is absolutely terrifying. So thanks, thread, for letting me laugh at Rick Perry's stupid glasses and Rand Paul's telephone head, but I'm not watching that Ted Cruz Simpson's thing. The man is disgraceful enough as it is. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:Mittens was right I mean, they're right in that real unemployment (the U-6 index) is higher than the typically reported unemployment (U-3), but they're wrong if they're saying that this shows that the recovery isn't happening, cause that would imply that it's at all valid to compare the U-6 of today to the U-3 of yesterday. Looks like the U-6 capped out in the financial crisis at around 17% in March of 2010, but it's been going down just like the U-3 metric, and was as low in May as it was in August 2008 at 10.8%. The low point in the last ten years was 7.9% near the end of 2006. source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102404260 Thinking about the U-6. Would keeping an eye on it be a good way to tell if the fear of Obamacare pushing corporations to convert full time employees to part timer's en masse had happened? I'd think that, if that concern was legitimate, there would have been some kind of spike in the U-6 last year when a lot of that stuff went into effect. From the data in this article, it looks like it's tied pretty close to the U-3.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Do we know much about the lead up to Bernie's decision to run? I'm curious how much planning went into his campaign ahead of time. Has he actually been wanting to do this since 2012 or earlier, or was it more of an opportunistic thing once it became clear Hillary wouldn't have much competition, so a couple months putting his campaign together as opposed to years? I can't say I ultimately care too much what name is next to the D on the ballot. Either Hillary will ride her years preparation and almost terrifying resistance to scandal into office, or whomever else will ride whatever overwhelming political wave allows them to defeat God-Empress Hilldawg. That said, I can't imagine not supporting Bernie in the primary, just because of the progressive message that sends. The better he does, the more likely it'll be that other candidates pick up parts of his platform. Also, between Bernie and Hillary, it's a win win. First democratic socialist or first woman in the office.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
This is slowed down or something, right? Cause otherwise, holy poo poo. Super glad Trump is still going strong. Not going to vote for him, but something about an eccentric billionaire totally loving up the Republican billionaire auction is just really great. Like a soapbox race with the one rich kid who sure as poo poo didn't make his own like he was supposed to, but all the kids are xenophobic assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:More like the other kids went online and got a bunch of wealthy pedophiles to buy expensive soapbox cars, too. You're right. I hosed up the analogy. It's a soapbox race, wherein the kids are supposed to make their own, but all the parents secretly help out. Little orphan Scotty Walker's got the Koch brothers helping him out. Donald Trump is himself, using a lack of formal rules to get into the race, driving a sports car. He's the bad guy, but since all of these kids are shitheads, it's oddly fun to watch. Oddly enough, if the Republican establishment has actually accepted the idea of billionaire puppeteers picking and endorsing candidates as kind of an unofficial rule of the modern party, I can totally understand why they look at Trump as almost a villainous presence. He really does break their rules; their culture of appearing like a legitimate democratic process while really being a bunch of bullshit. Having Fox News try to go full propaganda mode to try to realign the race and take him down and have it not loving work must be really disturbing for the head honchos. I know Obama had a bit of establishment support in his '08 run, but was there this kind of response from the DNC back when he was still picking up steam against Hillary? I mean, I know the media has had a hard time envisioning Bernie as a legit candidate, and I don't really blame them. I don't think, going into things, even Bernie Sanders considered himself legitimate in the "might actually win" sense, but in comparison the RNC's behavior in response to Trump's insurgency seems to be brazenly undemocratic, and kind of shows their hand in the whole process. Maybe it's just because this is really close to the straw that schisms the Right's back, so their in kind of a panic mode trying to reign him in or remove him. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The ability for genetic engineering to bypass many generations of selective breeding, not to mention the ability to combine genetic material that wouldn't even be accessible from selective breeding, means that the rest of the ecosystem those crops are in has less of an opportunity to adapt - this can have unintended consequences. It's not necessarily bad, but it's foolish to proclaim the effects of recombinant DNA to be the same as selective breeding. Yeah, I'd be more concerned about ecological damage to the surrounding environment than health risks to people eating the stuff. That's the sort of thing us human beings have been historically awful at.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Considering how bad most of the republican candidates today are, what was the awful part of George H. W. Bush? I mean, he was right wing, but standing next to these bozos and even his sons, he would look like the sane one, but he must had something to gain the support of the loons in the party. The loons just didn't have a full hand on the reins of the party back then, at least not in the way the Tea Party has pulled things. What probably motivated the crazies to vote for Bush Jr. was the Clinton hate machine that was already in full swing, and I don't know if he campaigned on it, but I know he supported a lot of measures towards loving over public schools, which is kind of a right wing looney issue. Looking back on it from non-highschooler perspective, H.W. Bush just seems like the perfect establishment Republican candidate. I mean, what crony style nonesense didn't his administration get up to? He did private schooling bullshit, pushed for privatizing social security, started a long, drawn out conflict that certainly lined the pockets of your typical military contract corporations, and allowed the banks to run wild and nearly destroy the economy. Edit: Oh poo poo wrong bush! I was too young to know anything about Bush Sr! bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Bernie is running as a Democratic party nominee, so no this isn't true. There were some concerns voiced in this thread early after he announced that, since he's been an Independent for so long and basically switched parties for the sake of his Presidential run, some state level Democratic parties might have rules or be douchey enough to refuse to let him be on the ballot as a Democrat. Probably unfounded concerns, but you did ask where the idea came from.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I wouldn't be too certain about that. My hunch is that a bunch of people who would normally vote Democrat will vote for him out of pure cynicism and a desire for change at any price. A lot of people are incredibly fed up with the political status quo in America and he is poised to tap right into that. Most of the accelerationists (folks who want change at any price) I've met have been a lot more likely to throw away their vote to a third party, or just not vote at all, because that sort of dumb rear end opinion comes from the false notion that both parties are the same. I'd be interested to see how significant the effect in the general will be of poor Republicans that managed to get decent healthcare from the ACA. I remember seeing a few youtube testimonials, probably before the 2014 election, of die hard Republicans admitting that Obamacare basically saved their lives or helped them significantly, and casting doubt on their party loyalty as a result. I found it pretty heartening to know that even pyrrhic victories like the ACA can persuade people into realizing that, despite the Republican talking points, the government actually can do good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Something about this claim chafes me, but I can't seem to get a good metric on what I don't fully accept about it. Well, assuming they got elected and served the full term, they have years of executive or high level legislative experience. If you're looking at a resume for the Presidency, that's the sort of thing you would expect. While they might be madmen with little to no actual chance of winning, they do potentially have the professional qualifications to do the job, and if the nature of Republican politics didn't encourage them to embrace the madness and go whole hog on theocratic tyranny, they might be professional enough to do well by the American people. As it stands, they're all acting like lunatics because that's pretty much what's expected of them. Unless Kasich somehow gets the nod, I expect whomever wins the nomination to pull towards the center, to try and express a certain amount of temperance of deference to the government process, even if just to depress Democratic turnout by not seeming like a proto-supervillain. I'd expect Kasich to pull a McCain and go right, since he seems to be trying to be the not insane guy right now, so he'd have to try and motivate the freepers in the general. Edit: Trump does what Trump wills. I have no idea how or if his rhetoric would change in the general election.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Twitter is making this whole thing less entertaining. The whole petulant manchild slapfight thing is funny because of the veneer of legitimacy applied to it in the form of debates and expensive campaign ads. Twitter slapfights are the sort of thing actual petulant children engage in, so it really just makes them seem childish to the point of pity. I mean, these aren't good people, but they're still people. How do they sleep at night knowing the last hope of their campaign is calling someone a shithead on Twitter as hard as they loving can? This is like first season DBZ when all the lovely humans are getting killed one by one by Napa, but everybody's like, "We just gotta fight harder, guys" knowing full well they're basically stalling til Goku gets back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
What happens to PAC money if their candidate dries up? Does the PAC find a new candidate? What about when that's no longer an option, like with really focused PACs or near the end of the primaries? Like, what would happen to Right to Rise PAC's millions if Jeb defected to Mexico or died or something? bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can't they spend the money on basically whatever they want? I don't think their "focus" actually matters. Right, but what do they actually do, throw a bigass kegger? Can they funnel it into another PAC or campaign? I feel like there's some potential liability there from betraying donor confidence. I suppose they could try to return it to donors, but that sounds like a giant pain to figure out who gets what.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Hillary would be exactly like getting an awkward call from your mom, right down to having to respectfully play along except because she's President instead of because she's your mom. Hilldawg: Congratulations on winning the Super Bowl! SB Winner: Uh... thanks, ma'am. Any chance we could talk to Bill? Hilldawg: *Hangs up* On Jeb!'s Stuff Happens thing, that opens up another line of attack. His argument is basically that we shouldn't restrict people because of bad stuff happening, but his brother, who kept us safe you know, did a hell of a lot of restricting of people's liberty in response to 9/11. Seriously. This man does not want to be President.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
It probably has to do with money. Hosting SNL is the same thing as going on a show like Colbert or The Daily Show. It's a live event and they're the guest, and, most importantly, they probably aren't getting paid to be there. Acting roles would involve royalty checks that could be construed as campaign contributions. There's probably ways around it if the candidate agreed, like they could hold the royalty money in escrow until after the election or something, but that's likely more of a hassle than just not airing particular reruns for a set period of time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 00:07
|
|