US Politics

[nate007]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Nice Article on AOC

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-media-781571/

 

Man, she is pretty awesome. Her policy ideas are wonderful and really would help out the 90%.

Check out what happened in the past when the top earners were taxed at 70%+. Even the Trudeau Liberals haven't gone there, and Canada would gladly accept all the tax dodging musicians and actors who want to come here, knowing that their windows of opportunity for high earning could be very limited. Go ask Roger Moore or the Rolling Stones about how they liked living in the UK in the 70s (hint: they moved away).

[blue_gold_84]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/progressive

Quote

progressive

SYNONYMS

modern, liberal, advanced, forward-looking, forward-thinking, go-ahead, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, up-and-coming, new, dynamic, avant-garde, modernistic, disruptive

It isn't misleading and has literally nothing to do with anyone's opinion. They are synonymous terms, with the word progressive having its origins from the Latin word progredi, which literally translates to advance or forward.

[The Unknown Poster]

15 minutes ago, nate007 said:

Check out what happened in the past when the top earners were taxed at 70%+. Even the Trudeau Liberals haven't gone there, and Canada would gladly accept all the tax dodging musicians and actors who want to come here, knowing that their windows of opportunity for high earning could be very limited. Go ask Roger Moore or the Rolling Stones about how they liked living in the UK in the 70s (hint: they moved away).

Its been higher.  AOC's plan is not crazy.  I think most people that dislike it who AREN'T super rich wish they were so they dont want to see the super rich taxed.  When AOC asks "isnt' $10 million enough?", thats a good question.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

If anything, calling someone progressive and forward-thinking is a bit of a redundancy. They're synonymous terms for the most part.

In other words, they're the exact opposite of an oxymoron.

Someone may want to consult a dictionary and/or a thesaurus before commenting next time.

 

39 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

But that's my point - calling these terms "synonymous" is extremely misleading.  

No. What you are trying to say is very misleading. You are factually incorrect, there is no opinion here. Please stop spreading misinformation. 

Progressive and forward-thinking are EXACTLY that by the very definition of synonymous.

syn·on·y·mous

/səˈnänəməs/

adjective

 

1. (of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.

    

    

    

Edited March 22, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Kim is playing trump like a fiddle 

Kim is playing  "turkey in the straw "

Meanwhile,  Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, and does not want them, is massively sanctioned. Which if anything, might push them into getting nuclear weapons.

 

NOBEL! NOBEL!

Edited March 22, 2019 by Mark F

[Wideleft]

39 minutes ago, nate007 said:

Check out what happened in the past when the top earners were taxed at 70%+. Even the Trudeau Liberals haven't gone there, and Canada would gladly accept all the tax dodging musicians and actors who want to come here, knowing that their windows of opportunity for high earning could be very limited. Go ask Roger Moore or the Rolling Stones about how they liked living in the UK in the 70s (hint: they moved away).

The 1950's are still referred to as America's "Golden Years".  Top Federal tax rates ranged from mid-80's to 90% for the entire decade.  

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Wideleft said:

The 1950's are still referred to as America's "Golden Years".  Top Federal tax rates ranged from mid-80's to 90% for the entire decade.  

If every person in the US who made over $10 million a yeah, voluntarily donated 70% of their above-$10 million income to a fund that was then distributed to everyone else using a formula where the most needy got the most and so on and so on...we'd call that a great Utopian ideal.

I suppose people can debate whether it would stifle innovation or make people lazy.  But in theory, its sort of a perfect scenario.  Those with more helping those with less.  At the end of the day if someone like me is taxed at 20% and someone like...say, Trump, is taxed at 70%, he STILL has way more money left over than I do.  Whats the problem?

Mostly, people who dismiss it are just doing the usual ideological blindfold routine.  I remember when everyone said Bernie was nuts for wanting universal health care and its not an accepted part of many mainstream politicians policies.  

Asking the super rich to pay more is not anti-rich or anti-business.  Its pro-human.

[bustamente]

The people will not accept the Mueller report if it is against him so says the royal emperor.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Nice article on AOC:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ocasio-cortez-again-proves-shes-clueless-on-economics

man is she clueless, about just about everything.  Her policy ideas are silly and unsupportable, and would really cause a lot of economic and societal damage.

Clueless? How- just say she is doesn't make it true. 

fox opinion piece frames it as she doesn't know what she is talking about and misses the entire point of the exchange- that's what fox does. Take a small snippet, misrepresent it and then pounce and degrade. People fall for that trick all the time. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, bustamente said:

The people will not accept the Mueller report if it is against him so says the royal emperor.

To be fair, the only people that matter will never except a report that is negative on Trump.  And by "only people that matter", I mean matter to Trump.  His racist base.

I

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Clueless? How- just say she is doesn't make it true. 

fox opinion piece frames it as she doesn't know what she is talking about and misses the entire point of the exchange- that's what fox does. Take a small snippet, misrepresent it and then pounce and degrade. People fall for that trick all the time. 

 

well, using a link to an opinion piece on FOX was the obvious clue that it was a nothingburger.   But if that's the proof against AOC's plans then it sort of reinforces that she's probably on to something.

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

If every person in the US who made over $10 million a yeah, voluntarily donated 70% of their above-$10 million income to a fund that was then distributed to everyone else using a formula where the most needy got the most and so on and so on...we'd call that a great Utopian ideal.

I suppose people can debate whether it would stifle innovation or make people lazy.  But in theory, its sort of a perfect scenario.  Those with more helping those with less.  At the end of the day if someone like me is taxed at 20% and someone like...say, Trump, is taxed at 70%, he STILL has way more money left over than I do.  Whats the problem?

Mostly, people who dismiss it are just doing the usual ideological blindfold routine.  I remember when everyone said Bernie was nuts for wanting universal health care and its not an accepted part of many mainstream politicians policies.  

Asking the super rich to pay more is not anti-rich or anti-business.  Its pro-human.

No to voluntarily donating, because the rich don't need anymore tax breaks.  Rutger Bregman nailed it:  “This is not rocket science,” he said. “We can talk for a very long time about all these stupid philanthropy schemes, we can invite Bono once more, but, come on, we got to be talking about taxes. That’s it. Taxes, taxes, taxes — all the rest is bulls---, in my opinion.”

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

No to voluntarily donating, because the rich don't need anymore tax breaks.  Rutger Bregman nailed it:  “This is not rocket science,” he said. “We can talk for a very long time about all these stupid philanthropy schemes, we can invite Bono once more, but, come on, we got to be talking about taxes. That’s it. Taxes, taxes, taxes — all the rest is bulls---, in my opinion.”

Absolutely.  I was just illustrating that if super wealthy did it voluntarily, everyone would be thrilled.  The difference is its a tax.  And those super rich can easily afford it.  But super rich often like being even richer.  I get it.  I wish I was more money too.  But do I whine about people worse off than me paying less taxes?  No, ofcourse not.  In Canada we pay too much tax as it is, but I should pay more than someone making half what I make.  And someone who makes ten times what I make should pay more.  Its actually a silly debate...its a no-brainer.

[Mark F]

12 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

well, using a link to an opinion piece on FOX was the obvious clue that it was a nothingburger.   But if that's the proof against AOC's plans then it sort of reinforces that she's probably on to something.

"Almost 8 in 10 Republicans who watch Fox News say Donald Trump is the most successful president in history.😂

That was just one finding of a new poll showing the deep ideological divide between Fox News viewers and everyone else. The poll results were provided to The Daily Beast by Navigator, a project launched by Democratic groups Global Strategy Group and GBA strategies. They surveyed more than 1,000 registered voters online with the goal of examining the differences in views between Fox News viewers and non-Fox viewers.

Thursday’s survey shows why many in the Democratic party have largely written off the network’s viewers as a lost cause.

The survey’s authors argue that the network presents an “alternate reality” in American politics, and plays an “outsized role in the way many experience and form opinions on the most important issues facing the country.”

The data show numerous ways in which Fox News-watching Republicans have radically different beliefs from non-Republicans and even Republicans who do not watch Fox News."

daily beast

Edit:

"Republicans who don’t watch Fox News, for example, are over twice as likely to believe climate change is man-made, compared to just 12 percent of Republicans who watch Fox News."

Edited March 22, 2019 by Mark F

[Wideleft]

Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World makes a lot of great points in his book regarding philanthropy and society's misguided appreciation for it.  Unfair to sum it up in one quote, but here goes:  “More often, though, these elites start initiatives of their own, taking on social change as though it were just another stock in their portfolio or corporation to restructure. Because they are in charge of these attempts at social change, the attempts naturally reflect their biases.” 
 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World makes a lot of great points in his book regarding philanthropy and society's misguided appreciation for it.  Unfair to sum it up in one quote, but here goes:  “More often, though, these elites start initiatives of their own, taking on social change as though it were just another stock in their portfolio or corporation to restructure. Because they are in charge of these attempts at social change, the attempts naturally reflect their biases.” 
 

🙂

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

"Almost 8 in 10 Republicans who watch Fox News say Donald Trump is the most successful president in history.

That was just one finding of a new poll showing the deep ideological divide between Fox News viewers and everyone else. The poll results were provided to The Daily Beast by Navigator, a project launched by Democratic groups Global Strategy Group and GBA strategies. They surveyed more than 1,000 registered voters online with the goal of examining the differences in views between Fox News viewers and non-Fox viewers.

Thursday’s survey shows why many in the Democratic party have largely written off the network’s viewers as a lost cause.

The survey’s authors argue that the network presents an “alternate reality” in American politics, and plays an “outsized role in the way many experience and form opinions on the most important issues facing the country.”

The data show numerous ways in which Fox News-watching Republicans have radically different beliefs from non-Republicans and even Republicans who do not watch Fox News."

daily beast

It's a complete propaganda network. I would be curious to see the FCC investigate these organizations. And, I'm sure there are some on the left too, just not as mainstream as Fox. 

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

🙂

“And what these winners wanted was for the world to be changed in ways that had their buy-in—think charter schools over more equal public school funding, or poverty-reducing tech companies over antitrust regulation of tech companies. The entrepreneurs were willing to participate in making the world better if you pursued that goal in a way that exonerated and celebrated and depended on them.” 
― Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World

[Mark F]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

It's a complete propaganda network. I would be curious to see the FCC investigate these organizations. And, I'm sure there are some on the left too, just not as mainstream as Fox. 

Trump Whitehouse staff and Fox news staff are interchangeable; 

 Trump gets his information from Fox. He relies on it instead of NSA, Dpt of Labour, Pentagon, EPA, FBI, and so on, all of whom he thinks are know nothings.

He might not be the worst President in history, but he's certainly the stupidest. By a large margin.

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Trump Whitehouse staff and Fox news staff are interchangeable; 

 Trump gets his information from Fox. He relies on it instead of NSA, Dpt of Labour, Pentagon, EPA, FBI, and so on, all of whom he thinks are know nothings.

He might not be the worst President in history, but he's certainly the stupidest. By a large margin.

No.... he's the worst, too.

[The Unknown Poster]

The report is in!!

[bustamente]

AG Barr now has the Mueller report, lets see how long he sits on it

Edited March 22, 2019 by bustamente

[The Unknown Poster]

No more indictments. For the special counsel anyway. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

49 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

No to voluntarily donating, because the rich don't need anymore tax breaks.  Rutger Bregman nailed it:  “This is not rocket science,” he said. “We can talk for a very long time about all these stupid philanthropy schemes, we can invite Bono once more, but, come on, we got to be talking about taxes. That’s it. Taxes, taxes, taxes — all the rest is bulls---, in my opinion.”

I love that guy- very truth to power tupe of guy:

 

The video where he makes ****** Carlson lose his **** was priceless.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

52 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

well, using a link to an opinion piece on FOX was the obvious clue that it was a nothingburger.   But if that's the proof against AOC's plans then it sort of reinforces that she's probably on to something.

LOL - yes, of course.  Just as usual, ignore the content.  So you think that banks should be held accountable if someone they lend money to has an environmental issue?  Really?  That to you is a "nothing burger"?