Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/09/17 04:09:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.
They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.
The point is, he had claimed that his parents fled Cuba as exiles, when they most definitely did not.
But they could have had much cooler cars for a much cheaper price. People have no perspective.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/17 04:09:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
IIRC (and I very well could be wrong), in our current system, as you reach certain steps, all income above that amount is taxed at X%. Lets say you make $250,000 (and all these numbers are made up) you'd pay a 5% tax on your first $10,000, 10% on the next $40,000, bringing you up to $50,000, 15% on the next $50000, up to $100,000, 20% on the next $150k, up to $250,000 so despite bing in the 20% tax range, you aren't paying 20% of your income in taxs. And that might inceas to 25% at $500k, 30% at $1M, ect. But if set a flat tac rate, it's you pay that amount on all your income, so if it's something like 17%, the poor would end up paying far more in taxes, while the rich may end up paying less.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/09/17 04:21:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: IIRC (and I very well could be wrong), in our current system, as you reach certain steps, all income above that amount is taxed at X%. Lets say you make $250,000 (and all these numbers are made up) you'd pay a 5% tax on your first $10,000, 10% on the next $40,000, bringing you up to $50,000, 15% on the next $50000, up to $100,000, 20% on the next $150k, up to $250,000 so despite bing in the 20% tax range, you aren't paying 20% of your income in taxs. And that might inceas to 25% at $500k, 30% at $1M, ect. But if set a flat tac rate, it's you pay that amount on all your income, so if it's something like 17%, the poor would end up paying far more in taxes, while the rich may end up paying less.
Right, that was kind of my point when I called that and eliminating everything else in favor of a tax on consumables both a feth you to poor people. There's a hard floor of products that you need to consume to survive, and from what I've read there isn't a proportionate climb in consumption with increased wealth, so the effect of both of these plans seems to be that rich people pay less, while middle class and poor people pay more. Ensis stated this was kind of the case, and I was just asking for clarification.
2015/09/17 04:35:34
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Not gonna lie, the "congrats CNN, you found a plane" kinda killed me.
It makes me feel good that, regardless of our political beliefs, one of the things that can always bring us together is pointing out just how terrible CNN is.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/09/17 07:22:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
"I will vote for the Republican nominee but let me say this flat out, Donald Trump is unfit to be President of the United States or the Republican Party's nominee."
It's nice to see him come out and say it directly.
I'm really sad he's not getting more attention, but I guess that's what happens when you are an un-exciting moderate who's pretty much stayed out of the public eye since finishing his terms as governor.
Edit: he also called out Kim Davis quite well
"There is a place where religion succeeds the rule of law, it's called Iran. It shouldn't be the United States."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Santorum is an idiot. He was trying to argue that the supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage is unconstitutional (wut?), and trying to argue against judicial supremacy. You know, that thing that's been part of our government since the beginning.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/17 07:31:59
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/09/17 11:14:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
According to American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.
No, the part in orange was NOT the case for Rubio. When folks, other than Democrats wanting to poke at Rubio use the term, that part in orange is what makes the term appropriate.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/17 11:58:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
How do you know what the circumstances for Rubio's conception were? I mean, his parents waited until after they had him and his brother before applying for naturalization and almost 20 years after they came to the United States...
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/09/17 12:54:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Been here how long as legal permanent residents? Having a kid at that point does not really improve 'chances for securing citizenship'. The Cuban Adjustment Act (and other laws) already pretty much guaranteed legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship (if/when the permanent resident went through the process).
They did not need to have a kid to stay here/be here legally. That should not be hard to grasp.
The way the term is used, having the kid on US soil enables the parents to remain, 'anchoring' them to the US. Hence therm, Anchor Baby'.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/17 13:11:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
After watching the debate last night...all I have to say is that the more I watch Trump, the more I can't stand listening to him. His standard answer to everything is basically not to give an actual plan, but state "I'll fix (insert issue here) because I'm Donald Trump".
And his " your a beautiful woman" response to Fiorino after she zinged him on his "view of women" was just cringe worthy.
I came away liking Christie, Rubio, and Walker better. Bush did better, but I kind of get the feeling that he doesn't really want to be there.
I'm just waiting for the trump implosion, so the media can stop fixating on this guy.
GG
2015/09/17 13:20:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Having a kid at that point does not really improve 'chances for securing citizenship'. The Cuban Adjustment Act (and other laws) already pretty much guaranteed legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship (if/when the permanent resident went through the process).
No, it doesn't. That's why "anchor baby" is such a terrible phrase.
I mean, I could make a decent argument that the Cuban Adjustment Act not only created "anchor babies" but "anchor people", all because "Lol, Communism is evil!"
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
2015/09/17 15:49:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: Not gonna lie, the "congrats CNN, you found a plane" kinda killed me.
It makes me feel good that, regardless of our political beliefs, one of the things that can always bring us together is pointing out just how terrible CNN is.
Glad to be of service...
But, the funniest thing I've seen was after the debate, Jeb tweeted:
Sorry Mom
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 17, 2015
Obviously because he admitted to smoking pot as a kid...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/17 16:30:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
Awesome, thank you sir.
2015/09/17 16:54:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Going back to a post I made earlier, for those of you who watched the debate, did any of you score a bingo?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/09/17 16:57:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
How does the government collect the tax on private sales?
The "fair use" system hurts the majority of people because most of us pay much less than 19-25% of our net income in taxes. While paychecks will increase by the amount that used to be withheld for federal income tax it won't be nearly enough to allow people to maintain current spending habits when prices rise 19-25%. Living expenses would rise by wages would still be the same so people would just spend less money and the government would collect less taxes. If the tax system incentivizes frugality then people will spend less.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/17 17:11:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm convinced that Jeb is just using this time to stay as far under the radar as possible and appear when he has to to be personable, have a sense of humor, and just not insane. Basically he's trying to keep the amount of ammo the democratic nominee will have to use from the primaries to a minimum (should he get the nomination).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/17 17:12:42
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
2015/09/17 17:38:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Hulksmash wrote: I'm convinced that Jeb is just using this time to stay as far under the radar as possible and appear when he has to to be personable, have a sense of humor, and just not insane. Basically he's trying to keep the amount of ammo the democratic nominee will have to use from the primaries to a minimum (should he get the nomination).
Very good point. I'm convinced that Trump is a democrat plant, because anybody who takes him on, it's just rolling in the mud and making themselves look stupid.
Mark Twain once said you should never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.
And that's what Trump is doing - wrecking the Republicans and anybody stupid enough to engage with him.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/09/17 18:10:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No, and no. I kind of hope we can start moving forward on this at some point.
On the plus side I realistically think now that in my lifetime marijuana will be decriminalized, and I have hopes that the drug war will end. That latter thing I'm less sure on, obviously, too many people getting too much money out of it. But at least now with even Republicans, typically "law and order" types, talking about the hideous costs to our society... maybe.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/17 18:17:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/09/17 18:42:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".
Trump just looks worse and worse evertime I see him, and a couple opponents made him look downright infantile, especially Fiorna and Paul.
All other candidates made no additional impression than they did the first debate IMO
At this point, I'm still guessing that either a Bush-Fiorna or Bush-Rubio ticket is the most likely outcome. And I wouldn't be horribly surprised if Fiorna won he nomination, at least if debates matter, as she is far and away the most able debater of the bunch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/17 19:38:21
2015/09/17 19:40:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
True. There's a big difference between the dictatorial powers of a CEO and trying to get Congress to pass legislation to accomplish your agenda. The plans the candidates propose (on both sides) and what can and will actually get passed by Congress are very rarely in alignment.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/17 19:50:38
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/17 19:51:22
2015/09/17 19:56:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.
True dat... which is fething ironic as Obama didn't have experience either.
Published by Doug Kaplan
Post-Debate National Poll Shows Fiorina Tied for First with Trump
Fiorina Skyrockets in Post-Debate National Poll
Washington, D.C., September 17, 2015 - One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, announces its national post-debate poll taken immediately after Wednesday night’s GOP Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Carly Fiorina jumps to first place at 22 percent, tied with Donald Trump. OAN’s previous national poll, conducted on September 3-4, showed the former HP top executive in seventh place with 2.7%. Marco Rubio lands in the third spot with 15 percent. The U.S. Senator from Florida ranked third in OAN’s early September poll with 12 percent, a three point gain for Rubio. Rounding out the top five are Dr. Ben Carson at 12 percent followed by Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tied at 6 percent. Bush drops nearly half his early September support of 11.4 percent to a post-debate 6 percent.
If the election for President were held today, which GOP candidate would you vote for?
Fiorina also had the highest showing with GOP national voters having a 78 percent more favorable opinion of the candidate post-debate. The less favorable percent came in at 13 percent with 10 percent unchanged. Thirty-three percent of GOP voters polled believed that Fiorina won the debate, the highest of any GOP Candidate. Trump came in second with 21 percent.
According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “One America News’ national post-debate poll shows it’s all Fiorina coming out of the second debate. It shows that some of the lesser known candidates have tremendous upside as voters across the nation become more familiar with them. Senator Rubio also had a strong showing on Wednesday picking up 3 points since our previous national poll in early September.
The poll, conducted exclusively for One America News Network by Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, sampled a random survey of 1,337 registered Republican voters across the U.S. regarding the performance and opinions of the Republicans that took place in the second Republican Primary debate. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3%. The polls were conducted using IVR technology and weighted by gender.
One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates. One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results. Complete poll results are available at http://www.oann.com/pollresults/l
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/17 19:58:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CNN got viewership, and ratings, but the questions were just as "soft" as Fox pitched at them.
Mostly more about Cut Planned Parenthood/Obamacare and make us bankrupt making more weapons and going to war with them along with tear up Iran deal. otherwise it was like watching arguing between drunks with the cutting each other off, and hurling insults.
Not one of them had revealed anything of substance, but I will agree, Carly Fiorina had as big a pair of balls as Trumpy
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
