Racist republicans

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by super71, Feb 1, 2019.

  1. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    an unmaintained undefended wall/steel slats in the middle of nowhere that can be sawed through with handpowered tools.

    if you are that into wasting money you could just send me some money for spaceship miniatures.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi


    In the "dreamland," LVT would be the primary or even only tax. Of all the types of taxes, it is the one that is considered least impacting decision making and incentives for people (income taxes reduces the incentive to work, corporate taxes reduces the incentive to invest, etc.)

    Consider the situation in Vancouver and Toronto in Canada where foreign investment in real estate is driving up prices. Many of these homes lie vacant as their entire purpose for purchasing it is for investment.

    Most of the "benefit" the person gets will not be taxable until the home sells, and then it still kind of depends on a lot of other factors.

    Under LVT, this type of speculation is decreased because individuals are incentivized to fully utilize any land they have rather than having valuable resources lay fallow.


    Taxes is a complex subject, and flat taxes is a popular one for people to discuss because it seems "fair." Everyone pays the same rate! What could be wrong with that?

    There are a number of potential issues with a flat tax, but the primary one is that it doesn't consider marginal utility. A dollar is not always worth the same in terms of utility. The more money someone makes, the less each additional dollar is valued.

    A flat tax would also dramatically shift the tax burden towards the lower and middle classes (much of which pay little to no tax currently). You might say, "that's more fair!" And perhaps that it is true, but we also have to consider the real world ramifications of this.

    Generally, it is estimated that to maintain the same level of revenue, a flat tax would have to be around 15-20% of income along with another 15-20% of VAT or some other consumption type tax.

    This may sound high, but keep in mind that the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes and a flat tax shifts the burden away from them, so the overall average tax rate would go up significantly.

    This means someone making 40k a year would end up paying up to 16k a year in some form of taxes with just 24k income remaining, compared to currently where such an individual may not pay any at all. This would have significant disruptions in the way the economy runs - and almost certainly simply just lead to some kind of uprising or revolution. It might be possible to transition slowly, perhaps, but fundamentally, what you end up doing here is incentivizing people not to report income or turn to crime because unless you can make millions of dollars you are barely getting anywhere.

    Also, keep in mind that the tax code's complexities is not due to tax brackets, which is actually super simple and is just a lookup table. The reason the tax code is complicated is because it has to define what IS income, what are the types of incomes (passive vs active vs capital gains, etc.), what is deductible, what is taxable, what credits etc. it's all this stuff that actually makes it complicated.

    Anyway, tax systems is a complex subject and I am willing to discuss it more, but it could really use its own thread.

    Last edited: Feb 2, 2019
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi


    DISCLAIMER: For the purposes of this, I will write you vs we, it's not precise but English is not the best language in some cases, and it's just easier to write it this way. I don't presume to speak for everyone, etc.


    So here's the thing. Politics is, by its nature, divisive.

    Think about any public policy decision and there are will be winners and losers. Always. Someone wins, and someone else loses. Even something like criminals go to jail has winners (non-criminals) and losers (criminals). Countries with a corrupt justice system has the opposite of that.

    And so when we have a position or an opinion, and we are concerned about it, we think "We are being reasonable. We are pointing out a real problem."

    But the other side points at you and goes, "Why are you being divisive? Why are you just screaming about some nonsense just to get your way?"

    Whether it's about equal pay or the wall, gerrymandering or illegals, it's all mostly rhetoric.

    And the thing is that it's easier for us, as humans, to just assign labels. So the left calls the right racist, and the right calls the left SJWs, etc. But it's all the same thing in the end.

    Each side feels like their positions are based on reasonable concerns, while the other side is just being lunatics. Specifically, there is often very little attempt at actually listening to the other side and just assuming stuff.

    For example, with the Russia investigation the right just screams "NO COLLUSION" constantly. But everyone I know on the left cares about the investigation beyond Trump. We are happy that the swamp is being drained of people like Stone and Manafort. The fact that Trump seems to have surrounded himself with traitors to the country and criminals also concerns us and I think it should concern conservatives too, but they are too busy screaming "NO COLLUSION" to care about the mounting criminal activities that this investigating is revealing.

    Also, think about how you've treated me. You've throw all kinds of labels at me and assumed a lot of things. But you also claim that you aren't attacking anyone, you are just pointing out flaws.

    Well, so are we. But you also think we are being divisive and not thinking properly when we do it.

    It all just comes down to perspective.


    Now, when it comes to clickbait media, that's a whole different story. That's divisive in a way that's quite harmful. I have lots of friends on social media on both sides of the spectrum and social media is just a nightmare of "LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS DOING." And you can blame the new media... but it's also us that's to blame for sharing this stuff and feeding the beast. Every time you share an outrage story about "flaws" of the "other" side, you are contributing to this.

    And politicians latch onto this. Look at the labels and words they use to describe each other and those who support them. Trump was very good at playing this game and labeling groups, painting them in broad strokes in order to signal to his base. You claim to have a problem with people being described in broad strokes, but seem to have no problem doing it yourself or with Trump doing it constantly.

    Again, it's just perspective.


    We also see this kind of play out with our perceptions of politicians. For example, Trump's inexperience in government was touted as a benefit by conservatives, and his "gaffes" were brushed aside as "locker room talk" and other such things. And admittedly the media might mountains out of molehills out of those, as they always do (happened to Obama, happened to Bush, etc.). But now we have AOC, who conservatives are attacking for her lack of experience and knowledge.

    But she says things that are literally wrong, you say! Yes, I agree. I am not a fan. But the problem is that conservatives seem to have no problem with their politicians saying literally untrue things constantly, and suddenly it's an issue because a Democrat is doing it? Paul Ryan, for example, constantly stated falsehoods about budget policy, like going around claiming that Obama "doubled the size of government" (easily verifiable to be false) but no conservative attacked him for that.

    Of course, liberals who are super excited about her are being hypocritical too. Suddenly, someone on the left who says dumb Bane Shift and seems to not know how the government works is great for the future of the country but Trump isn't for the same reasons? Come on now.

    Ultimately, it seems to me that there is not much of a principle when it comes to these things - it's ideology. People are willing to look past a lot of things if they think they will get their way.

    In any case, the important thing to remember is that people you talk to are human, believe their thoughts are logical and there's a lot more to them than something they typed on the internet. Both my in-laws are quite conservative, and we have had a lot of great conversations, but it does take effort not to just lump each other into the "other" category and talk at the label instead of to each other.


    Also, note that I am not suggesting I am not guilty of this. I do it too. And I honestly don't know anyone who doesn't at one time or another.

    I try to keep my engagements on these things relating to facts, because I know that the emotional stuff doesn't really convince anyone. Of course, I like to state my opinions too, so sometimes that comes out and it can be aggressive. But I hope you have noticed that in general though that my responses are usually precise in targeting specific points and claims being made and challenging their veracity in each instance, and not just a sweeping dismissal of the entire thing because of a difference of ideology.
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi


    I know it's what Trump/Right Wing media says, but unfortunately, it's more lies.

    Read up on human trafficking and you will find that it really doesn't happen at the border. It tends to happen inside - runaway youth is the biggest targeted group. Yes, there's a non-zero amount of trafficking across the border, but if you are concerned about human trafficking, the border should not be the focus.

    Human trafficking victims have been identified in cities, suburbs, and rural areas in all 50 states, and in Washington, D.C. They are made to work or provide commercial sex against their will in legal and legitimate business settings as well as underground markets. Some victims are hidden behind locked doors in brothels and factories. In other cases, victims are in plain view and may interact with community members, but the widespread lack of awareness and understanding of trafficking leads to low levels of victim identification by the people who most often encounter them.

    There is no single profile for trafficking victims; trafficking occurs to adults and minors in rural, suburban, or urban communities across the country. Victims of human trafficking have diverse socio-economic backgrounds, varied levels of education, and may be documented or undocumented. Traffickers target victims using tailored methods of recruitment and control they find to be effective in compelling that individual into forced labor or commercial sex.

    Runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to trafficking. A study in Chicago found that 56 percent of prostituted women were initially runaway youth and similar numbers have been identified for male populations. Runaway and homeless youth lack a strong supportive network and runaway to unfamiliar environments are particularly at risk of trafficking. Runaway youth are often approached by traffickers at transportation hubs, shelters or other public spaces. These traffickers pretend to be a boyfriend or significant other, using feigned affection and manipulation to elicit commercial sex or services from the victim.​


    The thing to keep in mind is that human trafficking tends to BLEND IN. They don't want to cross borders illegally and get scrutinized by law enforcement. If trafficking foreign nationals, as this paragraph shows, the goal is to get them into the country safely and legally, and then create an entanglement/debt:

    Foreign nationals who are trafficked within the United States face unique challenges that may leave them more susceptible to trafficking and exploitation. In 2013, 32 percent of calls with high indicators of human trafficking to the NHTRC referenced foreign nationals. Recruiters located in home countries frequently require such large recruitment and travel fees that victims become highly indebted to the recruiters and traffickers. These fees are inflated far beyond cost in order to create economic instability and dependency on the new employer or trafficker. Traffickers leverage the non-portability of many work visas as well as the lack of familiarity with surroundings, laws and rights, language fluency, and cultural understanding in order to control and manipulate victims.​

    The majority of drugs entering the US does not come from illegals crossing the border.

    Misconception 2: “Building a wall would greatly reduce heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl trafficking.”

    The vast majority of the drug that enters from Mexico does so through “ports of entry”—the 48 official land crossings through which millions of people, vehicles, and cargo pass every day.


    Now, imagine the contents of those containers broken up into tiny amounts and scattered across vehicles, luggage, and cargo shipments and sent through 48 land crossings, plus airports, over the course of 365 days. The difficulty explains why in 2015, the DEA reported that U.S. authorities managed to seize 6.8 tons of heroin, an amount equal to perhaps one-seventh of Gen. Kelly’s demand estimate.​



    Drugs are primarily moved by cartels or large criminal organizations. They don't bother with sending individuals across the border. They have a lot of money and a lot of resources. Much of it moves by sea:

    "[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.

    "We've seen growing use of self-propelled semi-submersibles (SPSSs) - low-profile vessels made out of marine-grade plywood [and] fibreglass with commercial engines. The smugglers spend up to a $1m (£665,000) to build one of these SPSSs for what is often just a one-way voyage.​

    In other cases, it is tunnel networks:

    "The cartels are always looking for a guaranteed way to cross narcotics into the US, and a sophisticated tunnel can allow them to cross large-scale loads. Last month we interdicted a tunnel in San Diego and seized more than 10 tonnes of marijuana.

    "Compare that to sending four guys across with 30 pounds of marijuana on their backs, who have to navigate the mountains, evade Border Patrols and arrange delivery, and you can see the difference in profit."

    ""This particular tunnel was over 600 metres long at 40 feet under the surface. It had lighting, a mechanism to circulate the air and a railway system so they could load the product in Mexico and run it down the rails to the exit point. They used a pulley system to pull the narcotics up into the warehouse."

    Again, it's non-zero coming across the border where a wall could stop them. Of course there's some happening up there. But it's not where the focus needs to be to fight this thing.

    Finally, border towns are actually some of the safest cities in America already:

    Violent crime rates in some border communities are lower than in other parts of the United States, according to FBI data. The FBI has warned against using its crime rates to rank communities’ safety because doing so overlooks other factors. Yet, local law enforcement officials have said crime is low in their border communities, and heavy federal and local law enforcement presence may be deterring crime in border communities.​


    Texas counties along the Rio Grande are relatively safe, state and federal crime statistics show, and they seem to be getting even safer as more law enforcement resources pour into the area.​



    But could you do more? Sure, you can ALWAYS do more until it's 100% safe and secure.

    The question though is when diminishing returns sets in, and when the effort and money is better spent on other things, and whether a wall is the best way to do it.

    Ultimately tho, any claim that there is a border "crisis" is a load of hot air. The US has actually done an amazing job of securing the border of late.

    (And, IMO, is an example of Republicans "screaming" about something until they get their way? See how a position you consider reasonable to hold can be seen, from another perspective, as the same thing you accuse the other side of?)
    Geressen likes this.
  5. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    I understand all that, i'm saying the average person doesn't understand how taxes work or all the loopholes even the average person can use, disregarding the millionaires and billionaires. When I say a flat tax rate, I mean just that, no deductibles no tax evasion tricks, nothing. You make a billion you pay 40% in taxes and their is no way around that in any way shape or form.
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So how would you handle those on the right who would argue, for example, that capital gains should not be taxed as ordinary income because it disincentivizes investment and would be detrimental to the economy?
  7. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!


    I'd like to read all this, so i'll have to go through the rest at another time.
  8. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    I'd tell them to go f themselves and you pay the 40% or get thrown in prison, that goes for either side.
  9. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    I know many millionaires that skirt around the rules of taxes, receives many more write offs then they should, granted they earned their money and worked hard for it unlike politicians, but they still need to pay the amount they are asked to pay and not anything less.

    The biggest problem with taxes though, is the fact that we don't tax a lot of the money that is invested in things like stocks. Where as this mostly would affect the wealthy, where as normal everyday citizens pay property taxes which is often their most profitable item when looking forward to retirement. So on one hand you have the already wealthy paying very little or no taxes on the gains they make in the stock market, and poor or middle class families paying out on their biggest investment being their homes. Their was a pretty good book I read on this a while ago.
  10. Silfeed

    Silfeed I need me some PIE!

    I never understood the "you did this x amount of years ago so now it's who you are forever". If he is still practicing them, that's another story. All he had to do was say, "I did something stupid when I was younger and I regret it. I am an older and wiser person and learned from my errors." I don't consider myself a democrat but I leaned that way up until the election. I'm not a republican either but I recognize who is the lesser of 2 evils.
    Baskitkase and Geressen like this.
  11. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    The problem is, the years ago door was opened by Democrats, and now they must deal with the consequences. Kavanaugh was nearly denied a job despite 0 evidence, yet this Democrat has a picture in the yearbook with a kkk hood, where is the Jim Carrey finger paintings, and all the celebrity outrage ? Double standards, if you wanna open up boxes of old nonsense, then prepare for the same. Not to mention the dude still works for the Democrats, and shortly the story will be buried most likely by the next government shutdown.

    Personally I think things 15 years ago should be left alone, but if were opening this box, open it for all politicians not just one side, and I wanna see reporting on both sides wrongdoings, not just one or the other.

    Are you saying your more conservative, or more liberal, as that final sentence is a bit flip floppy. That to me read that you are more conservative, then Gary liked you comment and I just assumed your Democrat or super liberal.
    Silfeed likes this.
  12. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    "I have not looked for left wing outrage and have not seen any on my regular right wing media, therefore it does not exist."
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So I write a ton of interesting stuff to discuss, and you say you want to read it all and reply later...

    And then nothing happens for days.

    And then you see an opportunity to attack liberals, and you immediately write more sentences than you did to me.

    Does this matter? And why would you assume that someone is a "super liberal" based on SOMEONE ELSE ENTIRELY clicking like? It's like you are looking for someone to hate.


    See why I think you are part of the problem you blame on the left?

    Now, I am not saying you are obligated to reply to me or anything, but it's clear where you place the emphasis of your time and thoughts.
    Geressen likes this.
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    To me this depends entirely on the scope of the issue.

    Of course, from a legal standpoint statue of limitations makes sense in some types of crimes until we discover the ability go back in time or something, but just because you weren't caught doesn't mean you aren't still guilty.

    That said, stuff like this, something you wrote in your highschool yearbook, some middle of the night tweet from 10 years ago... that's the kind of stuff where I agree with you.

    But there are crimes that I would take more seriously and not just assume it was a one time stupid thing - in the cases of crimes of a violent or sexual nature, for example, past behavior is one of the biggest indicator of future offense - so I'd take those more seriously even if it's in the past.

    The biggest issue with this kind of thing is really the public shaming - whether the issue is in the past or not - the public shaming takes on its own momentum and can ruin people's lives to a point that's not about justice or proportional to the issue itself (for example, the comparison of Kavanaugh to this photo situation tells you that it's easy to get mixed up in a tit for tat when the reality is the two situations are nowhere near analogous).

    There's a good book on this called So You Have Been Publically Shamed with some great examples of this type of thing happening:


    Also, this reminds me of when this candidate for Senate was attacked for playing an MMO:



    My favorite part is that they added "Deaths per Second" to DPS so that the reader would understand the acronym... except it's damage per second, lmao
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    Geressen likes this.
  15. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    You write too much stuff man, I only got through the first bit. It's clear I don't put a lot of time or effort into politics at all anymore actually, you can think i'm the problem despite me saying very clearly above that if were releasing this information the media needs to go after both sides not just one and the public needs to react the same to all sides. I'd say that's pretty unbiased actually, and to disagree that Democrats or Liberals didn't open this can of worms is disingenuous.

    As for the like thing, it was sarcasm which is hard to show over the internet.
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The point is that your POV is entirely biased, and rather than "both sides" you are clearly just looking for things to attack the "other side" for. This is why you make false equivalences with this situation and the Kavanaugh hearings. This is why you lie and say this was "hush hush" even tho it can be clearly demonstrated it wasn't... so much so that even Saturday Night Live made a skit about it.

    You spend what you admit to be little time you do in politics to be divisive and work to add to the noise and partisan rhetoric while pretending to be neutral.

    At least the rest of us have the decency to admit to being biased.
    Geressen likes this.
  17. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    I like your responses (most of the time). They are very detailed. But emotional appeals work best for persuasion while logical appeal work best for discussion. Just for your information. @super71 is trying to persuade. You're just trying to discuss.
    Geressen likes this.
  18. Silfeed

    Silfeed I need me some PIE!

    When I speak, it’s just from how I see things. I don’t speak from the camp any of any group. I’m black and I associated myself with democrats when I was younger just for that reason, nothing more. I understand a bit more about how things work so I just use common sense and logic and go from there.

    I agree. The problem is having multiple cases of accusations with no evidence. It’s to the point now where if I hear an accusation against a guy, I automatically think it’s probably a false claim. Not cause I’m evil but because of how things are today.
    Geressen and super71 like this.
  19. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    All i'm saying was this box of worms was opened up because the democrats went back thirty years with the Kavanaugh hearings. I don't see how you don't see how the two are related ? Democrats went back thirty years looking for dirt, found nothing on Kavanaugh, republicans went back 15 years and found dirt, this is how politics works as I recall you saying.

    You continue to scream i'm biased, despite me saying all politicians are equally useless, and I mostly side with common sense and reason versus emotional responses. Not sure how much easier I can explain this to you, if it was a Republican wearing black face next to someone with a kkk hood he would already be removed (which he should be) and the outrage would be swift, why is this guy still in office then given the visual evidence and him admitting to it ? You scream and yell about all your information always being correct, yet lack the basic understanding about how these two topics are related, and sided with Democrats on the Kavanaugh situation regardless of their being any evidence against him, this tells me you either let your emotions dictate your responses or your biased.

    You continue to say how different we are, yet a page ago most of what we talked about we both agreed on. So out of the two of us who is dividing ?

    I have no political affiliations and never have, I have no religious affiliations and never will, these are things I continue to say but you don't seem to get because I often side with Republicans on certain topics, but their are numerous occasions where I am on the side of Liberals and Democrats. However as of the last few years i'm not even really sure what Democrats are running on, the people getting elected are primarily people that just said they would remove Trump, or Liberals saying free health care for all, and free education for all, sure these things are great and i'd love for it to work, but it's unrealistic and we both agreed on something similar a page ago. Liberals and Democrats seem to openly oppose a wall, yet years ago they wanted one, and now they don't ? This to me was very simple, Democrats are losing votes, how do you get more votes if women, white men, and now African Americans are all starting to vote the other way ? I just have a hard time not seeing why you don't get this, Democrats don't care for illegals, they care for their votes.

    I've also noticed that the people that often yell the loudest about American issues, typically aren't even American born citizens, this goes for news stations and reporters as well. It's becoming very obvious that for whatever reason, this world is being divided on every thing, we sit here and argue about nothing while the people making the moves in this world continue to go unchecked.

    You continue to say my facts are wrong and i'm making things up, how can my facts be wrong, and yours are always right, or maybe you don't like my facts ? The problem were having is miscommunication, a page ago I agreed something needs to be done with people overstaying visas, and the border is still an issue, but less of one. This was me acknowledging the problem, but saying we could still improve our border despite illegals slowing down coming across, we still have illegals coming across, therefore we still have a problem there but less of one now.
  20. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    So basically, Kavanaugh was accused with no proof, but your willing to go further on that because it was sexual, even though their was no evidence. Then you have a guy that wore black face in high school, and we have visual evidence, and verbal confirmation, but you don't wanna go back on that because it's not as big of a deal. I agree the black face thing isn't as big of an issue as a sexual assault, but their was no evidence for the sexual assault, and their is evidence of this guy being racist.

    Don't you see how this can be considered biased ? You saying the party who you mostly identify with in regards to politics, is less guilty regardless of the proof present ? This man openly admitted to being in the picture, and yet nothing on Kavanaugh other than 50+ people coming out and saying he was a great guy, this list includes women.

    If a republican had done the same thing, I would want him to resign immediately, that is how I know i'm not biased, I don't fight for a party who is in the wrong given the proof like you just did.

Share This Page