bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think I've read an interview from anyone who has worked with Trump that doesn't say he's one of the dumbest people they've ever interacted with. He's absolutely a con man but he's also stupid.

All you would end up doing is creating a new business for accountants to devalue someone's holdings. I assume that you are saying that the wealth will be the value of the asset less any loan against the property, because that's the only way a first-time home buyer would be taxed nearly nothing. Why wouldn't the wealthy simply take loans against their assets thereby devaluing them for the purposes of a wealth calculation? The same way that they borrow against their stock portfolio.

But if you tax based on wealth, doesn't that make home ownership less possible? Property taxes aren't going away, but now a wealth tax is going to hit property owners? Sales tax is extremely regressive. Income tax is one of the few ways to do progressive taxing.

I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.

The first three are great, the fourth idea is insane. Why shouldn't people pay into their government? If you're poor, like the first $25k, fine let that be tax free, but why not keep the money in the government coffers and provide single payer healthcare, free college tuition, student debt forgiveness, municipal broadband? Our taxes are not high compared to other western nations.

If it makes you feel better, I did the same thing, but it took your comment for me to realize.

The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don't want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.

Literally from the article you linked.

But under a more likely scenario, Biden would take advantage of rules that allow unlimited transfers to the candidate's political party. In that case, Biden's Democratic Party could spend the money supporting the party's new candidate.

He can also transfer to a Super PAC.

Edit: In case you don't believe me again.

Biden could also potentially transfer his funds to an independent super PAC if Harris is not on the ticket.

https://www.vox.com/joe-biden/361991/361991biden-campaign-funds-after-drops-out

Yes, she's the only candidate, but the funds can also go to the DNC or a Super PAC if Biden directs them there.

until your child gets pregnant...

until your child mistress gets pregnant...

There, I fixed it for you.

That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?

In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.

If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.

Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?

They both need to step aside, it's better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don't like.

Even after 2004, reading this still makes me angry.

It's sad, because it's not fair to anyone that that needs to be a concern. But given the risk, I just want Gavin Newsom to replace Biden. I don't want to take any chances. A milquetoast white guy who is middle of the road. Then president AOC if I had my druthers.

If there are consistent calls for Biden to step down over repeated missteps and glaring concerns, it may not be the people on Capitol Hill that are stubborn.