US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Very interesting post Stavros. I agree with it though I don't know a lot about corporate tax policy. I don't even know off the top of my head what our corporate tax rate is though I could quickly look it up. Corporate tax is probably easier to dodge than individual income tax as companies can move their headquarters and manufacturing plants to evade tax burdens that might have to be apportioned between different countries. While technically someone can change citizenship to avoid individual income taxes, it seems to me corporate tax is more likely to involve a race to the bottom dynamic in which raising rates won't always result in more tax revenue because companies deliberately choose situs based on tax liability.

While I can see some arguing that raising tax rates for the rich must be based on their ability to help pay for government services rather than to create equity, I don't think we necessarily need to choose. More equity doesn't have to be the direct result of their paying so much in taxes that they're no longer rich but instead be the result of creating the kinds of social programs and opportunities that create social and economic mobility. That may sound idealistic but equity is a good thing as is healthcare, educational opportunities and social safety net.

One question I have is at what point someone is rich. There are many grades along the way in my opinion. Whereas someone is unlikely to become rich with an income of between 50-100,000 pounds, someone making 150,000 to 200,000 pounds has those investment opportunities. I think sparing the middle class makes a lot of sense here where they do not have much of a buffer against catastrophic medical bills....maybe less crucial in Britain where you have NHS, but I can still see an important distinction between doing well and rich.

---

I think the distinction between doing well and being rich depends a few different factors. The most important being where a person lives.

If a person's gross income is a million dollars, but they live in NYC, I think they're definitely doing well, but can't be considered rich. Especially if they're married and have children.

If a person's gross income is $500,000 and they live in NYC, I would consider that person to be upper middle class/lower upper class.

But I think the important thing to remember is that its not distinction between being rich and doing well that should be focus of who should pay more what when it comes to raising taxes. I think the distinction should be between who is wealthy and who is rich. Chris Rock put it best when he said:

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


While this video is from 2004, I think the view still stands today. Especially when you consider the income gap in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As I predicted, it has been discussed 'at the highest level'. No debates, then. And maybe no election. The man certainly wants to go down in history for his unique style and decision making...

"Donald Trump on Thursday morning floated the idea of delaying November’s presidential election, justifying the extraordinary suggestion by repeating his false claim that widespread voting by mail from home would result in a “fraudulent” result.

Trump’s incendiary proposal was dropped in a Thursday morning tweet, as the US was reeling from bad economic news, digesting the death toll of 150,000 having been reached in the coronavirus pandemic and preparing for the funeral of Congressman John Lewis in Atlanta. In it he claimed without evidence that “universal mail-in voting” would lead to “the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT election in history”.
Trump, pontificating that the result would be a “great embarrassment to the USA”, he raised the prospect of a postponement. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???” he tweeted."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...onomic-figures

---

This latest tweet from The Clueless Buffoon In Chief shows he is afraid of losing the November Presidential Election,and is desperate to hold on to power and get re-elected, and also shows that he's a hypocrite because him and everybody in his administration voted by mail. and is laying the groundwork to challenge the results of the election. he doesn't have the authority to postpone the election,only the United States Congress has the authority.

Once again, Biden drives a few more Black Americans towards being Independents, Libertarians, or Republicans:
(If Biden keeps talking like this, he's going to cause his own loss in November)

Joe Biden: ‘Unlike the African American Community … the Latino Community Is an Incredibly Diverse Community’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ommunity-nabj/

Here's an interesting data point:
81 Percent of Black Americans Want the Same Level, or More, of Police Presence: Gallup
https://reason.com/2020/08/06/81-per...esence-gallup/

Interesting article of concern from a Democrat

Joe Biden's Capitulation to the Crazy Left is Alienating Democrats Like Me
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/07...crats-like-me/
"The Hard Left Controls Biden Now"
"Biden Betrays Law Enforcement"

"....These voters cannot be discounted as racists or deplorables who need to be canceled. Their votes matter just as much as the protesters and rioters. They could easily lift Trump to a second term.
If that happens, Democrats will have only themselves to blame. The coronavirus gave them the chance to show what real leadership looks like. So far, they have failed.
Democrats have a small window to come to their senses, reconnect with working people, and fix it. But that will require them to get out of Washington and stand up to the special interests that are exploiting the virus for political gain — and that seems increasingly unlikely."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Once again, Biden drives a few more Black Americans towards being Independents, Libertarians, or Republicans:
(If Biden keeps talking like this, he's going to cause his own loss in November)

Joe Biden: ‘Unlike the African American Community … the Latino Community Is an Incredibly Diverse Community’

---

So Biden can sometimes say something stupid -of the two candidates for the Presidency, who would you say is capable of saying the most stupid things -indeed, who is on record saying the most stupid things?; and will enough Black Americans because of what Biden said, change their vote?

By contrast Biden makes modest statements, compared to his competitor, who couches so much in absoutes there is no room for reality to get a look in: 'nobody ever saw that before', 'the greatest economy in the history of the world' (what does that even mean?); the greatest, the best, the finest, from a man who wants you to visit Yoseminite Park, or Thighland (don't we all?), who presides over a system that gives milions of dollars in loans to the Kushner famiy, father and sons...how many Black-owned and run businesses got millions of tax payer dollars?
...gaffes, if they are to define the election, are already stacked up against the Incumbent, and no amount of disinfectant is going to make his self-inflicted wounds heal before November. Some statements are so shocking they are never forgotten.

Long after Biden's remark about Black Americans is forgotten, Disinfectant may be identified as the Keyword of the 2020 campaign.

Is it a clever move by the President, to use an Executive Order to spend money without the approval of Congress? On the one hand he provokes a debate about the income Americans need and want -as defined by him-while ignoring the rule of law, and on the other hand by provoking litigation, his time-honured tactic for dealing with his own failures- he ties down the Democrats in process rather tha policy, lest the policy be exposed to the claim made by Robert Reich that while their President takes money away, his corporate buddies have received more money than they can spend?

Thus:
"Asked by a reporter why the benefits would be $400 instead of the previous $600, Trump responded: “This is the money they need, this is the money they want, this gives them a great incentive to go back to work.” He added: “There was a difficulty with the 600 number because it really was a disincentive.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-for-jobless

and
ince the start of the pandemic, American billionaires have been cleaning up. As more than 50 million Americans filed for unemployment insurance, billionaires became $637bn richer. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth has ballooned 59%. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’s, 39%. Walmart’s Walton family has added $25bn. .....On 28 July, Trump announced a $765m deal with the firm (Kodak) to bring drug production back to the United States. He called it “one of the most important deals in the history of the US pharmaceutical industries,” even though Kodak isn’t even a pharmaceutical company.
.....This much is clear: Trump and his Republican enablers won’t provide $600 per week to tens of millions of Americans who need the money to survive the pandemic, because Trump and the GOP believe the money undermines incentives to work. Yet Trump has no problem letting billionaires illegally profit off the pandemic. He thinks that as long as they buoy the stock market, they’re helping the American economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...f-the-pandemic

As predicted, Kamala Harris will be Biden's running mate. A clever move on his part, for however much doubt and dirt is now stirred by friend or foe, Senator Harris does appear to be sane, capable of articulating an alternative future for her country without using the language of the sewer, and may appeal to those voters being told her party is in the grip of the 'radical left', when it is the insertion of extremists from the right into the Republican Party that has been the stand-out aspect of party politics since 2016.

Needless to say, for all his contempt for her now, he must concede, she can't be all that bad-

"The president first donated to Ms Harris in 2011 as she was running for attorney general. That donation amounted to $5,000 (£3,793). He then donated another $1,000 (£758) to her re-election campaign in 2013, Washington newspaper McClatchy reported on Monday.
Ivanka Trump also donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic senator. In 2014 she donated a reported $2,000 (£1,517) to Ms Harris’ re-election efforts."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8807421.html

Maybe the Republicans should ask themselves of their leader -Is he one of us?

And now it gets interesting, but will Biden and Harris be safe, or sorry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

As predicted, Kamala Harris will be Biden's running mate. A clever move on his part, for however much doubt and dirt is now stirred by friend or foe, Senator Harris does appear to be sane, capable of articulating an alternative future for her country without using the language of the sewer, and may appeal to those voters being told her party is in the grip of the 'radical left', when it is the insertion of extremists from the right into the Republican Party that has been the stand-out aspect of party politics since 2016.

Needless to say, for all his contempt for her now, he must concede, she can't be all that bad-

"The president first donated to Ms Harris in 2011 as she was running for attorney general. That donation amounted to $5,000 (£3,793). He then donated another $1,000 (£758) to her re-election campaign in 2013, Washington newspaper McClatchy reported on Monday.
Ivanka Trump also donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic senator. In 2014 she donated a reported $2,000 (£1,517) to Ms Harris’ re-election efforts."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8807421.html

Maybe the Republicans should ask themselves of their leader -Is he one of us?

And now it gets interesting, but will Biden and Harris be safe, or sorry?

---

Agree,Joe Biden selecting Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate was a clever move on his part. and she is capable of articulating an alternative future for the country without using divisive language,and appeal to voters being told that her party is in the grip of the radical left,when in fact it is the insertion of extremists from the right who have taking over the Republican Party that has been the stand out aspect of the party politics since 2016. and also agree the Republicans should ask themselves of their so-called leader is he one of them.

It is clever in various senses:
a) if the Republicans want to use Law and Order as their stick to beat the Democrats with, they have in Kamala Harris a former Attorney General for California, in effect the second most powerful AG in the US, and also one who has, shall we say, 'disappointed' the very same left that the Republicans claim she has become part of. One wonders if anyone in that party, from the White House to the outhouse, has ever met anyone left-wing, or maybe they keep watching old George MCGovern videos? And how left-wing was he?

b) Harris, rather than scaring off the 'suburban' voter, may actually increase the Democrats vote, as suburbs today are not what they were in the 1950s, as is remarked of one in Texas-

"Nearly 500 miles east, in the expanse of metropolitan Houston, Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni is running to represent a suburban congressional district that is worlds apart fromthe one that exists in Trump’s imagination.
Texas’ 22nd congressional district, which is almost the size of Rhode Island and nearly as populous, is so diverse that his campaign is distributing literature in 21 languages."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cratic-suburbs

c) I am sure Mr Fanti will dismiss the claim that Senator Harris represents, or even has the right to represent Black voters, but on the other hand, if Black voters look at the candidates and ask, 'Who is best among them for me?' I think the majority might choose her -who else? Mike Pence, by contrast? Has anyone ever seen his lips move when he speaks?

d) I believe Harris might be the least Christian candidate in US history -although she attended a Baptist school growing up, via her father I assume, her family history is dominated by her (now deceased) Hindu mother (the father left when Harris was 7 seven years old) and she also went to Hindu temples. She is married to a Jew, and although I don't believe she converted to Judaism, she has a solid record of support for Israel including the popular misconception as expressed here: "“Years later when I visited Israel for the first time, I saw the fruits of that effort and the Israeli ingenuity that has truly made a desert bloom.” (Historical note: there was no desert to bloom before the 1880s, the fertile areas of what is now Israel were producing oranges and olives and plums and wheat and...etc no need to let Israeli propaganda spoil reality for ya) ---but that is hardly surprising for top-tier Democrats, even if she does, or used to believe in a two-state solution -you can read a snippet or two about it here-
https://www.jta.org/2019/01/11/polit...-kamala-harris

The point might be that for those Republicans who feel they have 'lost' their America to a generation or two of immigrants who don't share their Christian European heritage, Harris represents exactly what it is that they think they have lost.

It may also be the case, as she identifies as Black, that Harris is only 50% closer to Slavery compared to Obama, who was also identified as Black but had no family connection to the Atlantic Slave Trade. It means the US has yet to see anyone fully connected to Slavery reach high office -but I am not sure who that would be.

As for the President, if his Law and Order shtick doesn't work with Harris, is he going to take a gamble on using 'race' to bait her? His only route appears to be via BLM if he can make it stick, and depending on how she responds to BLM questions.