US Politics Thread

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
She is known for that. We had to deal with her in our own troubled times. I just sometimes wonder where these people come off and if they have any trace of conscience. But in order to do what they set to, the politicians have to control the mainstream media. That is the first goal. Anything to achieve it. I sometimes think that repeating some things over and over again does make it to be truth for most people. I don't know.

Both accurate statements. So many people don't realize that we know only what they want us to know. Those in charge control the narratives, which is why it's mind-boggling that people actually argue and get angry with each other knowing, or should know that they're only getting a smidgeon of information, no matter how informed they think they are.

And definitely, it's been scientifically proven that anything, even a lie, repeated numerous times gains validity in the eyes of many.
 

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
You don't get it do you?

I think it's the other way around. What makes you think you have all the answers and anything against your view is wrong? That's a horrible way to look at things in life, relationships, your job, and life in general.

I have never once posted to you to tell you how wrong I think you are. You know why? Because I don't care what your opinion is, but I feel that you're entitled to it, whatever it may be. It doesn't bother me.

But you, this is the second time you've come at me in a passive-aggressive way. Not to cheerfully debate any points, but to be high-handed and arrogant. I don't know why you feel the need to address me directly. It's funny to me, because I don't give a care what you think, or what your beliefs are. What's baffling to me is why you care so much about mine. Live and let live. OK. Learn tolerance. I tolerate your opinions and have never addressed you initially. I'm asking you to show me the same respect.
 
Last edited:

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
Surprise, surprise! LOLOLOL, who didn’t see this coming? The one percent? Not even the 2%? Oh, and he’s cutting out the overtime pay for the less fortunate who make less than $47,000, his poorer, uneducated constituents, LOLOLOL! A lot of lower income people are going to be hurting. I can’t believe people didn’t see this coming. LOLOLOL. As if everyone didn’t know this was coming. This is going to be funny.

Trumps tax plan Massive cuts for the 1% will usher era of dynastic wealth

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trumps-tax-plan-massive-cuts-for-the-1percent-will-usher-era-of-dynastic-wealth/ar-AAkESSC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

President Donald Trump is set to give America’s richest 1% an average annual tax cut of $214,000 when he takes office, while more than eight million families with children are expected to suffer financially under his proposed tax plan.

On the eve of the election, Trump promised to “massively cut taxes for the middle class, the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country, who built our country”. But independent expert analyses of Trump’s tax plan show that America’s millionaire and billionaire class will win big at the expense of struggling low- and middle-income people, who turned out in large numbers to help the real estate billionaire win the election.

Experts warn that Trump’s tax plan will exacerbate America’s already chronic income inequality and herald in a “new era of dynastic wealth”.

“The Trump tax plan is heavily, heavily, skewed to the most wealthy, who will receive huge savings,” said Lily Batchelder, a law professor and tax expert at New York University. “At the same time, millions of low-income families – particularly single-parent households – will face an increase.”

Batchelder, who wrote an academic paper on Trump’s tax plan published by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that the president-elect’s plan “significantly raises taxes” for at least 8.5 million families, with “especially large tax increases for working single parents”. More than 26 million individuals live in those families.

Related: Donald Trump's economic policies could go badly wrong – but not soon enough

According to Batchelder’s research Trump’s tax changes – taken at their “most conservative” – could leave just over half of America’s nearly 11 million single-parent households facing an increased tax burden. This figure rises to 61% – or 7 million households – if the analysis is run on “reasonable assumptions” that the changes Trump has suggested go ahead.

Single-parent families would suffer the most because Trump would lower the minimum of tax-free earnings to $15,000 per adult no matter how many children in the household. Under current law the threshold is $17,400 for single-parent families with one child and $24,750 for a couple with one child, and the threshold increases by $4,050 for each additional child.

Trump also plans to consolidate the current seven tax breaks into three: 12%, 25% and 33%. His plan would scrap the current 10% tax for earnings under $19,625 and replace it with 12%. Trump’s proposed childcare credits would not make up for the changes, according to Batchelder.

Minority families are set to suffer disproportionately from the tax increases, according to Batchelder. With 32% of African American families facing a tax increase compared with 19% of whites, this is mostly due to African American families being more likely to share the burden of childcare within the family and hence not benefit as much from Trump childcare credits. Batchelder said the effective tax increase for many millions of families would run into the thousands.

While the poor will face tax increases, the Tax Policy Center research said the rich would received big tax cuts that get even bigger as you work up the income scale. The top 20% of earners would receive an average annual tax cut of $16,660 compared with an overall average cut of $2,940.

The richest 1% will collect 47% of all the tax cuts – an average saving of $214,000.

The 0.1% – the 117,000 households with incomes of more than $3.7 million – would receive an average 2017 tax cut of $1.3 million, a nearly 19% drop in tax they were due to pay in 2016. The tax savings of the super-rich will increase further in future, with the 0.1%’s estimated 2025 tax bill to fall by $1.5 million.

It is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton’s tax plan, which would have seen taxes rises for the super-wealthy. Under her plan, the top 1% would pay an extra $163,000 a year more on average, and would have made up 93% of all new tax revenue by 2025.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
This article was pretty solid, up until the last section, which I will address here.



This is a straw man argument. No one is talking about defeating "Islam" per se or eradicating it from the planet. The problem with Islamic terrorism stems from two sources: 1) the presence of large numbers of Muslim immigrants in the West, and 2) provocative, destabilizing policies by Western governments, particularly the U.S., in the Middle East. You solve the problem by addressing these two problems.

Also, I must say that this line one hears ad nauseam that there are "over 1 billion Muslims in the world" is a great example of egalitarian frenzy causing the suspension of rationality. People need to calm down and think instead of sounding like they just got high on crack while listening to an Obama speech. If someone says that there is a rational, factual basis within the Islamic tradition for what ISIS and other groups do, that is not to say that Islam solely equals terrorism or war or hatred. If you look at the Islamic sources (the hadiths, the biographies of Muhammad written by Muslim historians, etc.) you see that there is a clear justification for terrorist groups to do what they do. However, that is not to say that there isn't more to Islam than that or that our perception of Islam needs to be 100% "it is war."

My view of Islam is this: if you look at moderate Muslim countries like Indonesia or Iraq before Saddam was deposed, you see millions of regular, decent people living their lives. That is undoubtedly a reflection of Islam's normal and universal aspects. However, when you evaluate how Muslims throughout the world politically engage with non-Muslim societies, you see paranoia, hysteria, subversion, and antagonism. Muslims are a political nuisance almost anywhere you find them engaging with a broader non-Muslim society. They create security concerns and ceaselessly whine about how poorly they are treated.

So what is the dumbest thing you can possibly do? What the modern U.S. political class has done: militarily intervene in the Middle East to piss everyone off, and then bring in millions of Muslim immigrants who are encouraged to set up shop and bring their ways into the host societies. The result is billions and billions of dollars spent on useless military interventions and liberty-constricting government policies like spying and phone-tapping.



Irrelevant point when you are talking about how Islamic people politically engage with non-Muslim societies. Islam has different strands but there are commonalities between all of them. One of those commonalities is reverence for Muhammad and his words.



Exactly right, which is why allowing large-scale Muslim immigration is insane and bound to lead to billions of dollars spent and widespread unpleasantness.



True to a point. I agree when it comes to military intervention, but not immigration policy. There is no need to poke the beehive with unnecessary bombings and drone strikes. At the same time, Muslims are not blameless when they go to the West. There is a faction of them that will stir up trouble no matter what, and if pointing this out or acting to prevent it bothers some Muslims, then so be it. You have to protect yourself and take measures that in the end will provide permanent effectiveness.



Again, true for foreign policy, not for immigration policy. Once Muslims are in the West, they should not be offended by criticism of Islamic jihadists if they are truly assimilated.




This is completely silly. It is not the business of Westerners to tell Muslims in the Middle East how they should feel about anything. That is for them to decide. All we should care about is how our actions make them respond to the extent that they can threaten us. Beyond that, nothing else matters.




Silly strawman argument coming out of egalitarian frenzy. It is leftists in the West who cannot conceive of any shades of gray that violate their conception of equality. Either someone must see all Muslims as Osama Bin Laden (in which case they are Islamophobic bigots) or someone must see Islam as equally peaceful to any other religion, without any uniquely violent aspects (in which case they are supposedly enlightened and kind-hearted). Both conceptions are nonsense, but the left must prop up this straw man to maintain credibility in the argument.



No. Fundamentally the West needs to put itself in a position where those who adhere to jihadism are not in a position to hurt it.




Again, leftist presumptuousness at work. Leftists think that Muslims must conceive of reality like they do or that they will respond with the same feelings.



This final quote indicates that the poor fellow who wrote it is terribly confused and doesn't know what the solution is.


Your need to classify people and their views never ceases to amuse me. You're describing George Friedman as a leftist? :lol3:
 

Asmodeus

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
147
Reactions
10
Points
8
Location
Somewhere on the edge of society.
I think it's the other way around. What makes you think you have all the answers and anything against your view is wrong? That's a horrible way to look at things in life, relationships, your job, and life in general.

I have never once posted to you to tell you how wrong I think you are. You know why? Because I don't care what your opinion is, but I feel that you're entitled to it, whatever it may be. It doesn't bother me.

But you, this is the second time you've come at me in a passive-aggressive way. Not to cheerfully debate any points, but to be high-handed and arrogant. I don't know why you feel the need to address me directly. It's funny to me, because I don't give a care what you think, or what your beliefs are. What's baffling to me is why you care so much about mine. Live and let live. OK. Learn tolerance. I tolerate your opinions and have never addressed you initially. I'm asking you to show me the same respect.

I only picked on you in this instance since you continued to state that Republicans are bad for gerrymandering congressional districts when in an earlier post I stated that both parties gerrymander. You can't blame one side on this issue when both sides use the same strategy. You either don't realize it because you are willfully ignorant and choose to live in an echo chamber or you don't want to admit that you are blindly partisan are will ignore facts to support your side.

I'll spare you the pain and not post on the income inequality rubbish you recently posted. However, if you want me to take you to the woodshed I'll gladly accommodate you.
 

Tennis Fan

Major Winner
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
1,171
Reactions
429
Points
83
I only picked on you in this instance since you continued to state that Republicans are bad for gerrymandering congressional districts when in an earlier post I stated that both parties gerrymander. You can't blame one side on this issue when both sides use the same strategy. You either don't realize it because you are willfully ignorant and choose to live in an echo chamber or you don't want to admit that you are blindly partisan are will ignore facts to support your side.

I'll spare you the pain and not post on the income inequality rubbish you recently posted. However, if you want me to take you to the woodshed I'll gladly accommodate you.

You'll spare me the pain? LOL, you have no pain to give me or any other anonymous poster on an internet posting site. Get over yourself. You're accusatory and full of yourself and I'm not interested in talking to people like you who are intolerant and think that what you say takes precedence over the thoughts and opinions of others. I think you're short-sighted and nothing that you say to me will be taken seriously because of your hostile attitude and derogatory manner. You sound just like the candidate that you support and you act the same way.

Toodles.
 
Last edited:

Asmodeus

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
147
Reactions
10
Points
8
Location
Somewhere on the edge of society.
You'll spare me the pain? LOL, you have no pain to give me or any other anonymous poster on an internet posting site. Get over yourself. You're accusatory and full of yourself and I'm not interested in talking to people like you who are intolerant and think that what you say takes precedence over the thoughts and opinions of others. I think you're short-sighted and nothing that you say to me will be taken seriously because of your hostile attitude and derogatory manner. You sound just like the candidate that you support and you act the same way.

Toodles.

I didn't vote for Trump.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Your need to classify people and their views never ceases to amuse me. You're describing George Friedman as a leftist? :lol3:

One doesn't have to officially be a leftist to display leftist influence in his or her views.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Ok, I'm going to play devils advocate here. What specifically lost CNN their credibility?


Well, let's see....what lost CNN their credibility? LMAO......just to name a few things:

1) Wikileaks showed their long-time employee Donna Brazile gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time for her debates with Bernie,
2) Wikileaks showed us that both Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer consulted the Clinton campaign on what to ask Ted Cruz and Trump before interviewing them live on air,
3) That they fed the bogus frenzy about Trump sexually assaulting women,
4) That they underreported Wikileaks and, with zero evidence, cast aside Wikileaks' revelations as "Russian propaganda" or "Russian hacking",
5) That they did not report anything on the personal backgrounds of Gonzalo Curiel or Khizr Khan, and
6) That they never reported any facts on illegal immigration to balance out the narrative of "undocumented" victims.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Surprise, surprise! LOLOLOL, who didn’t see this coming? The one percent? Not even the 2%? Oh, and he’s cutting out the overtime pay for the less fortunate who make less than $47,000, his poorer, uneducated constituents, LOLOLOL! A lot of lower income people are going to be hurting. I can’t believe people didn’t see this coming. LOLOLOL. As if everyone didn’t know this was coming. This is going to be funny.

Trumps tax plan Massive cuts for the 1% will usher era of dynastic wealth

TennisFan, this shows yet again how biased and credulous you are. Same old narrative - Democrats care for the average person, Republicans care for the super-rich. Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same thing, especially when it is disproved over and over?

Let's get a few things straight here:

1) There has been a Democratic president for 8 years and, as Bernie Sanders said repeatedly, the gap between the haves and have-nots has only grown. So, even if this gap was to grow under President Trump, it would only be continuing the trend that you had no problem with when the president was named Obama and not Trump.

2) If you do not understand how regulations and high corporate taxes hinder the economy, then you do not understand economics. The issue is not whether rich people remain rich but how to get others to do better. If Trump cuts corporate taxes and decreases regulations to get business owners to re-invest in America, then lower and middle-income Americans will reap the benefits through more job opportunities and higher pay.

3) Trump has not had a single day in office. Give the man a chance. You are acting like you were already proven right because of an MSN article citing a study that is projecting what will happen. Sorry, but that proves nothing.

4) Here are the economic statistics for African-Americans under Obama. Did you raise hell about these trends the way you are raising hell about what might happen under President Trump?

- # of black Americans on food stamps up 58% from 2009 to 2014 (USDA)
- # of black Americans in poverty up 8.2% from 2009 to 2014 (U.S. Census)
- # of black Americans not in the labor force under President Obama up 19.6% from 2009 to 2016 (U.S. Census)
- # of black Americans who own homes down 4.6% from 2009 to 2016 (U.S. Census)
- Black median income down 1.5% from 2009 to 2014 (U.S. Census)
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
Well, let's see....what lost CNN their credibility? LMAO......just to name a few things:

1) Wikileaks showed their long-time employee Donna Brazile gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time for her debates with Bernie, That's fair
2) Wikileaks showed us that both Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer consulted the Clinton campaign on what to ask Ted Cruz and Trump before interviewing them live on air, Didn't know that, interesting
3) That they fed the bogus frenzy about Trump sexually assaulting women, Not sure this has been disproved
4) That they underreported Wikileaks and, with zero evidence, cast aside Wikileaks' revelations as "Russian propaganda" or "Russian hacking", I don't see why they wouldn't take US Intelligence views seriously. Frankly my issue with the media, CNN included, on this issue is how little serious reporting was done on Russia's involvement in the elections and the Trump campaign. I mean... we still don't know definitively that the Russians haven't influenced a US election. I find it amazing
5) That they did not report anything on the personal backgrounds of Gonzalo Curiel or Khizr Khan, and Not sure what the relevance of that would be. But ok, you got my interest, what is there to know?
6) That they never reported any facts on illegal immigration to balance out the narrative of "undocumented" victims.
Possibly... but then they didn't do much reporting of white supremacist support for Trump

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with @britbox regarding the incompetence of CNN and other media outlets. My contention would be that their malfeasance was far less specific than Trump supporters would have us believe. Their focus was on the entertainment value of the election and the profits they would make. I didn't find them specifically anti-Trump. He created an anti-media atmosphere and it worked for him
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Possibly... but then they didn't do much reporting of white supremacist support for Trump

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with @britbox regarding the incompetence of CNN and other media outlets. My contention would be that their malfeasance was far less specific than Trump supporters would have us believe. Their focus was on the entertainment value of the election and the profits they would make. I didn't find them specifically anti-Trump. He created an anti-media atmosphere and it worked for him

C'mon Federberg... Cali's examples were quite damning... particularly leaking the debate questions to Clinton.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
I won't go into false negatives so much (what they didn't report on) but in respect of their actions in (1) and (2)... that is very damning, particularly (1).

(4) is just silly. The intelligence agencies didn't actually report the Russians did it... they reported that the technique used was something that Russians had used before. The technique was just basic "phishing"... which is widespread throughout the entire world. The Russians certainly will use it, but so would pretty much every other hacker on the planet.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
I won't go into false negatives so much (what they didn't report on) but in respect of their actions in (1) and (2)... that is very damning, particularly (1).

(4) is just silly. The intelligence agencies didn't actually report the Russians did it... they reported that the technique used was something that Russians had used before. The technique was just basic "phishing"... which is widespread throughout the entire world. The Russians certainly will use it, but so would pretty much every other hacker on the planet.

When intelligence agencies bother to mention a specific country it implies a level of seriousness that can't just simply be dismissed as "silly" in my view. As far as I'm concerned this election cycle has been interesting and historical for many many reasons, but for me everything pales into insignificance when I consider that there is a chance that the former superpower rival of the United States of America might have directly or indirectly influenced a US Presidential election. The fact that some people dismiss it because it doesn't fit a narrative they are comfortable with is another one of the more bizarre sub-plots for me. Particularly when it is reported that the Russians have done the same to a number of European countries
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
When intelligence agencies bother to mention a specific country it implies a level of seriousness that can't just simply be dismissed as "silly" in my view. As far as I'm concerned this election cycle has been interesting and historical for many many reasons, but for me everything pales into insignificance when I consider that there is a chance that the former superpower rival of the United States of America might have directly or indirectly influenced a US Presidential election. The fact that some people dismiss it because it doesn't fit a narrative they are comfortable with is another one of the more bizarre sub-plots for me. Particularly when it is reported that the Russians have done the same to a number of European countries

Here is the thing... if the Russians had hacked electronic voting machines and distorted the results then I'd agree with you...

I dismiss it because I know the easiness of the hack... that in itself hasn't been disputed... You probably get a couple of dozen phishing attempts to your mailbox every year... do you think the Russian government are behind it? You my friend, are the one taking the lazy narrative without exploring the facts.

As for influencing elections directly or indirectly... did you raise any points of concern when Barack Obama flew to Europe to speak on Brexit? or American attempts to influence elections throughout the entire world? Who do you think provided a substantial amount of funding to NGOs involved in colour revolutions around the world?
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
Here is the thing... if the Russians had hacked electronic voting machines and distorted the results then I'd agree with you...

I dismiss it because I know the easiness of the hack... that in itself hasn't been disputed... You probably get a couple of dozen phishing attempts to your mailbox every year... do you think the Russian government are behind it? You my friend, are the one taking the lazy narrative without exploring the facts.

As for influencing elections directly or indirectly... did you raise any points of concern when Barack Obama flew to Europe to speak on Brexit? or American attempts to influence elections throughout the entire world? Who do you think provided a substantial amount of funding to NGOs involved in colour revolutions around the world?


I don't see what is lazy about taking seriously the concerns identified by US Intelligence agencies.

hahahaha! You're seriously suggesting an equivalence between a US President invited to advocate a pro-EU stance and the potential for a malign intervention by Russia in the US? Utterly bizarre.

Re: US attempts to influence elections around the world? You can't be this obtuse. I am talking specifically about the US electorate not seeming to care that their own elections might have been interfered with. If that isn't strange to you, then... well I really don't know what to say :D
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
How were they "interfered with" exactly?

The Wikileaks stuff was information leaked on things that were actually said by those concerned. I'm not sure what your problem is with it other than the result of the election. Wikileaks don't provide a narrative, just leak data.

So, tell me again - how did the Russians malign the results? Even if you think the Russians were responsible for the hack... which could actually have been performed by a 12 year old script kiddie... what of it? Communications were put in the public domain...

In contrast, look at the funding the US provided to NGOs in the Ukraine, Russia and various other countries around the globe... how would you feel if Russia donated 5 billion dollars to the Republican party? because that is the figure roughly accepted that the US spent in the Ukraine?
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
How were they "interfered with" exactly?

The Wikileaks stuff was information leaked on things that were actually said by those concerned. I'm not sure what your problem is with it other than the result of the election. Wikileaks don't provide a narrative, just leak data.

So, tell me again - how did the Russians malign the results? Even if you think the Russians were responsible for the hack... which could actually have been performed by a 12 year old script kiddie... what of it? Communications were put in the public domain...

In contrast, look at the funding the US provided to NGOs in the Ukraine, Russia and various other countries around the globe... how would you feel if Russia donated 5 billion dollars to the Republican party? because that is the figure roughly accepted that the US spent in the Ukraine?

Apparently it's more than just Wikileaks mate, I think I've intimated that several times but you persist on looking at Russian intervention through a narrow Wikileaks-lense. When I have more time I'll post some articles. Furthermore you keep missing the point I'm making. This is not about morality, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up examples of US interventions elsewhere. Truth be told I would find it ironic, and hugely amusing (if there really was Russian intervention). The point is, I don't understand how a country that was one half of the cold war has taken such a blase stance regarding possible Russian interference. And I'm not even bringing up the possible associations the Trump campaign have with Russian interests. If you don't get why I should find that surprising then let's just move on
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Post them up when you get chance... look forward to it. In the meantime if you can explain how the Russians persuaded US voters to vote Republican then I'm all ears... because it's a red herring on the data that's out there at the moment.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2449
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 82
britbox World Affairs 1004
britbox World Affairs 46