2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

3,451 to 3,500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

It really boils down to ONE REASON, and ONE REASON ONLY for most of them. (of course, we know that's probably only 50% of them, still, that's a HUGE amount of voters).

They feel the next person in the supreme court is THAT IMPORTANT. They feel the ONLY way to get someone with a certain political slant, whether that is towards guns, size of government, healthcare, budget, money, Social Security, Taxes, or otherwise is to have someone who will put in a conservative judge into the Supreme Court.

You get rid of that reason for them...and I think Trump's numbers will plummet.

Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I have said all that to say this: a larger portion of my broader social circle ("Christian" and beyond) have expressly stated their votes will be going to Trump over HRC. The first item on the list (universally so in the case of the "Christians") for their declaration of support is this: the likelihood of nominating a conservative SCotUS justice.

If Clinton swore to nominate a conservative to replace Scalia, the vast majority of those voting for Trump still wouldn't consider either voting for her or sitting out the election. A large percentage of likely Clinton voters would however be greatly disturbed by her quick and easy capitulation to Repubs and conservatives, and would likely consider throwing their vote to a more liberal candidate or sitting out the election. Concessions to conservatives and Repubs wins Clinton almost no voters in return, and would be illogical considering her current lead is from her more liberal progressive positions on policies. Showing any weakness to Repubs--who have consistently blocked, undermined, and fought Obama on everything they could--would guarantee she accomplishes nothing in a Clinton Presidency. The drop in likely Dem voters at the polls would also doom many crucial downticket Dems, which keeps Congress firmly in Repub control, and thus cripples any chance Clinton has to nominate any other progressive SCotUS and circuit court judges. It also fubars many Dems in tight races on the state and local level.

Clinton pledging to nominate conservative appointee for SCotUS is a losing position that is terrible for Dems and more progressive voters, and sets up a poor position for the 2020 Census and Congressional redistricting. It would cement Repub legislative and spending control for at least another decade, and skew judicial decisions for even longer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Stuff on the Supreme Court and Marriage
As a straight white cis male Christian who supports gay marriage (...it's a little complicated, although it probably shouldn't be...), I sometimes wonder what would happen if we legally separated 'Marriage' and 'Civil Unions/Partnerships' further apart than they currently are. That is, marriage would essentially be a religious function (with little/no legal standing outside of churches), while the union would be entirely secular (and have the legal standing, as required for things like making medical decisions, splitting ownership of things, tax advantages, and so on).

It wouldn't change anything. They don't want these unions to happen under ANY aegis that would give them standing. They've opposed civil unions with as much fervor as they oppose marriage.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Question:

Am I thread crapping or just keeping it light? I only ask for your perspectives, not necessarily the ones I have.

I think you are doing fine. A little humor often goes a long way in helping cool the thread to a simmer instead of letting it boil over.

Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Definitely keeping it light. Meringue levels of airy.

Ew!! I hate Meringue! Why not just whipped cream?
A family friend has long referred to meringue as "calf spit". I concur with that assessment.

I suspect none of you had a Southern grandmother who made amazing baked chocolate pudding pies topped with meringue. A rare dessert that qualifies as both heavenly and sinful.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

While i am certainly liking the lightheartedness of the last while, maybe we should return to some more . . . *realistic* content?

Though i certainly don't want to break the cease-fire . . . .

More on topic, a Yahoo! article written by the AFP discussing California Democrat gun owners and a referendum on gun control in that state on the 8th November ballot.

Thoughts?

Well, it's the AFP, so salt heavily. But I think most of the fears expressed in the article are overblown. It's doubtful that firearms will ever be outlawed in California. Nothing is preventing gun owners from expressing themselves (and that particular snippet is ironic as all hell coming from a gun owner who is expressing his view to a news agency while declining to allow the use of his name) - the individual in question is conflating being outvoted with having his speech restricted, which is baloney. Another guy trots out the substitution of method myth. I'm glad the article at least acknowledged that our state's gun laws have dramatically reduced firearm deaths.

Nothing to really be concerned about, though. This is a political minority complaining that things aren't going their way, and acting like the political consequences are going to be larger than they will be.


Scott Betts wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

While i am certainly liking the lightheartedness of the last while, maybe we should return to some more . . . *realistic* content?

Though i certainly don't want to break the cease-fire . . . .

More on topic, a Yahoo! article written by the AFP discussing California Democrat gun owners and a referendum on gun control in that state on the 8th November ballot.

Thoughts?

Well, it's the AFP, so salt heavily. But I think most of the fears expressed in the article are overblown. It's doubtful that firearms will ever be outlawed in California. Nothing is preventing gun owners from expressing themselves (and that particular snippet is ironic as all hell coming from a gun owner who is expressing his view to a news agency while declining to allow the use of his name) - the individual in question is conflating being outvoted with having his speech restricted, which is baloney. Another guy trots out the substitution of method myth. I'm glad the article at least acknowledged that our state's gun laws have dramatically reduced firearm deaths.

Nothing to really be concerned about, though. This is a political minority complaining that things aren't going their way, and acting like the political consequences are going to be larger than they will be.

I found it odd that the article did not mention anything about the specifics of the referendum. Not even the typical proposition ##.

For those that are interested, I found Proposition 63 here. There's a lot on California's plate this November 8th, with 17 additional propositions/amendments or state level items of importance.

Regarding Proposition 63, there are two clauses that I would guess would provoke the most ire.

First, the clause removing the grandfathering protection for ownership of 'large capacity magazines' prior to 2000. "It's been 16 years already, why bother now?" Etc.

Second, the clause determining that firearms worth $950 or less are given special treatment as stolen property compared to anything else of identical value (felony theft vs. misdemeanor theft). The logic behind this strikes me as odd.

As an aside, there are a lot of political minorities complaining that things aren't going their way. You're sympathetic to most of them. ;)


Quote:
Second, the clause determining that firearms worth $950 or less are given special treatment as stolen property compared to anything else of identical value (felony theft vs. misdemeanor theft). The logic behind this strikes me as odd.

Because for finding the guy that stole my DVD player Chief Wiggum showing up, looking around and saying "nope.. don't see it" is fine but if someone swiped a gun you may want to put Benson and Stabler on it before it winds up on the black market?

Guns that people don't know you have have a street value well above their price in a gun store, and their sale brings a great deal of risk to citizens and law enforcement alike. Increasing the penalties for that in an effort to discourage it is a no brainer.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Second, the clause determining that firearms worth $950 or less are given special treatment as stolen property compared to anything else of identical value (felony theft vs. misdemeanor theft). The logic behind this strikes me as odd.

Because for finding the guy that stole my DVD player Chief Wiggum showing up, looking around and saying "nope.. don't see it" is fine but if someone swiped a gun you may want to put Benson and Stabler on it before it winds up on the black market?

Guns that people don't know you have have a street value well above their price in a gun store, and their sale brings a great deal of risk to citizens and law enforcement alike. Increasing the penalties for that in an effort to discourage it is a no brainer.

If they're already resorting to stealing a firearm, the punishment is not going to be an effective deterrent. The result is yet another charge piled onto the rest when they catch 'em.

"Hey Bob, maybe we shouldn't still this dude's piece. We'll get 3 years for doing that?" "Dummy, we're going to waste the cashier at the liquor store, take all of the money. some of the booze and steal a car. What do we care about another 3 years? No grab that gat and get goin'."

Edit: If the thief steals it and pawns it somewhere that is less picky about such matters to score $50 or $100 to feed an addiction, I'd rather not add anything more to the junkies' woes.

The punishment does not seem to truly fit the crime as there is more than one reason to steal a firearm. I suspect the above motive (feeding an addiction) is a far more common reason than stealing one to use to commit further/violent crimes.


Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

The tax burden is nasty in this area if you're doing well enough to hit the regional median income. 45% not counting for full price health care premiums and regional cost of living gobbles up nearly all of the rest. Tack on the other day-to-day taxes and I'll be genuinely surprised if the total amount of taxes shelled out-of-pocket don't hit at least 50% of net income. Which is ridiculous.

Personally, I'm more than ready to blow the lid off the tax codes. A brief moment of pain, then we can get better and truly fairer. As you say so wisely, the nation does not seem ready to view such an ugly set of truths.

I'd be absolutely shocked if taxes hit 50%. I don't know where you live or what bracket you're in, but I'm not sure how you even reach 45%.

Or what regional median income has to do with it? Unless you're just saying you live in a really expensive area, so even at median you're in a high bracket?

45% is federal + Social Security + Medicaid + State + County after deductions as a self-employed small business owner. I do live in an expensive area, which results in the bracket unless I have a very bad year. Tack on sales taxes, property taxes, the gaggle of taxes buried in the utility bills, it adds up fast.

I've not done this recently, but the amount of consumption taxes paid is a significant percentage in its own right. They're scattered all over the place, so they're not too bad at a glance. It is when you tally them up that it gets large. Utility bills have a gaggle of fees and taxes attached to them. Sales taxes. Meals taxes. Federal, state and sometimes municipal fuel taxes comprise a surprising chunk of the cost per gallon of fuel. Personal and real property taxes. Tally it all up for a year sometime, it may surprise you. Or it may not. ;)

13,476 average miles driven/year right now in the US. Driving at the current average 28.3 miles/gallon of gas results in purchasing ~476 gallons of gas/year. At 48.18 cents/gallon in taxes...

Sales taxes can be significant, depending on where you live. That gas tax is a drop in the bucket, if you're in a higher income range. It's hugely regressive, so it's significant for poorer people. Similarly for most of the other consumption taxes. Property taxes can be high, but are often more than offset by mortgage deductions - at least for the early years.

Don't forget tax brackets are marginal, so it's far from as simple as adding your top tax rate to twice the FICA tax. If you're actually in a high tax bracket, you're past the cap on Social Security tax anyway.

In my state, it looks like, without any itemized deductions, you would start to hit 45% somewhere north of a million in income. Even doubled, SS is pretty much irrelevant at that point, since it only applies to the first $100K (or so). Real taxes anywhere near that level will be lower, probably much lower, since no one with that kind of income isn't doing something to get deductions.

I'm not near the top brackets, but I paid around 22% in state/federal/FICA. That would have jumped to 28% if I was self-employed, since I'd be paying SS on my whole income. Even at my income level, a few hundred in gas taxes won't change the percentage. Sales taxes would be another couple percent (Far from all of my money is spent on things sales tax applies to.) Property taxes count, but are offset by deductions. Despite property tax, my actual tax burden dropped when I bought a house. Expenses didn't, but taxes did.

People tend to wildly overestimate how much they pay in taxes. It's possible you're an exception and somehow in a particularly bad situation, but the odds are against it.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as racist by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly racist.

So, you're saying that you accept all the allegations made against Hilary Clinton over the last 40 years are indisputably true?

Because, if a lot of people say a thing, over a long period of time, that makes it impossible to argue against.
In your opinion.

Because after all, "If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as dishonest by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly dishonest."

Right?

Scarab Sages

Sissyl wrote:

Dammit. You got me, Orfamay. Public views are what spell out the undeniable truth. Now I just have to adapt to speaking "Börk börk börk houdy doudy meatballs", to the fact that the capital of Sweden just became Toblerone, to defending myself against the polar bears on our streets, and so on. It's gonna be tough, but hey, there are enough Americans out there who actually think these things about Sweden that the paltry ten million Swedes really can't compete.

Oh well.

If the Brexit campaign has taught us anything, there's plenty of British people, who are prepared to believe absolutely anything about the rest of Europe.

Is Björn Ulvaeus still going for that 10th term as President?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: AFP gun article --

A very good friend of mine lives in the greater Los Angeles area. If she ever wore yoga pants in public, she would become a statistic of one variety or another (this is a hint of hyperbole mostly for the sake of illustrating just how calipygean she is; it's the wildest thing -- she enters a venue, accompanied, and things go from 0-to-creepy-stalker-guy(s) in less than 15 minutes, with a degree of regularity; or, perhaps, she wears her best jeans more often when i am visiting). She lives alone, barely scrapes by economically, and doesn't own a gun.

I would prefer she had a gun. I don't think she wants one. We try not to discuss flashpoint political topics too often -- we disagree on the weirdest things.

I am more inclined to side with L. Neil Smith's bit (paraphrased, and spoilered for intensity)

Spoiler:
about gun control being an argument exalting the moral superiority of a raped woman strangled with her pantyhose over a woman explaining the fatal bullet wound to the police.
An extreme case, and not universal, but i point to it to make this assertion: guns are morally neutral, in and of themselves, and need no control beyond trigger and safety.

I am not opposed to the idea of a no-sell list, on the other hand. Demonstrated history of immoral/unethical conduct pertaining to guns, violence, threats, etc. should merit rigorous examination and restriction. If we can get such a list through Congress, "Huzzah!" Guns are not the problem; people are the problem ("guns" in this sentence should be taken to include trucks, knives, pressure cookers, fertilizer, teacups, candlesticks, scissors, etc.).

While there is a consistent, observable connection between gun control laws' strictness and decreases in gun violence, we can still see that such reduction is statistical, and of a less-than-100 value. If you ask me where i would put my vote, gimme the guns. While i would like a world where gun violence was a zero sum, this is not that world. Should i ever fall outside the "safe range" of those statistics, i would much prefer having a near-equal defense at hand than to be convinced of the moral superiority of gun control while exsanguinating on the roadside. Besides -- i have a good grasp on law enforcement response times in my area: I will need that gun long before they show up.


250+ posts and mods, looks like I missed a lot.

Apologies to anyone I left hanging, the meeting took longer than expected and, even more so, the consumption of alcoholic goodies afterwards.

Got to go put up more flyers this morning, go to work, and then attend another standout to Vote No On No. 2 this afternoon.

I'll see if you're still here later!

Anklebiter out.


Pillbug --

The Republican obstructionism in Congress these past few years has *really* stuck in my craw. I think it terribly unfortunate that Mitch McConnell might be a majority leader for 4 more years. But, not in KY, so my words on that point are smoke.

And HRC really *shouldn't* go conservative in SCotUS nomination, to which some others have pointed. On its face, this election should be hers alone to lose; the fact that in some ways it appears she actually might lose is something i find unsettling. While i won't vote for her, and my protest vote will be swallowed up in the redness that is TN, i *do* believe she will win this election. (God help us all, if either of them do.)

Further -- Southern grandmothers? Check. Great cooks? 50%. Meringue? 0%.


thejeff wrote:

Sales taxes can be significant, depending on where you live. That gas tax is a drop in the bucket, if you're in a higher income range. It's hugely regressive, so it's significant for poorer people. Similarly for most of the other consumption taxes. Property taxes can be high, but are often more than offset by mortgage deductions - at least for the early years.

Don't forget tax brackets are marginal, so it's far from as simple as adding your top tax rate to twice the FICA tax. If you're actually in a high tax bracket, you're past the cap on Social Security tax anyway.
In my state, it looks like, without any itemized deductions, you would start to hit 45% somewhere north of a million in income. Even doubled, SS is pretty much irrelevant at that point, since it only applies to the first $100K (or so). Real taxes anywhere near that level will be lower, probably much lower, since no one with that kind of income isn't doing something to get deductions.

I'm not near the top brackets, but I paid around 22% in state/federal/FICA. That would have jumped to 28% if I was self-employed, since I'd be paying SS on my whole income. Even at my income level, a few hundred in gas taxes won't change the percentage. Sales taxes would be another couple percent (Far from all of my money is spent on things sales tax applies to.) Property taxes count, but are offset by deductions. Despite property tax, my actual tax burden dropped when I bought a house. Expenses didn't, but taxes did.

People tend to wildly overestimate how much they pay in taxes. It's possible you're an exception and somehow in a particularly bad situation, but the odds are against it.

45% is combined, not accounting for sales taxes, after all reasonable deductions have been applied, as already explained. Federal tax rate is funky for non-incorporated small businesses because it is (base amount at start of bracket) plus (% over amount #) across a very large bracket. A lot of small businesses will fit in this bracket unless they are retailers, which is a wholly different kettle of fish. Such fun things as "linear footage of shelf space assessments", "road frontage" taxes and so on.

Your Social Security (FICA), federal and state withholding amounts are MATCHED by your employer. Employees pay half of those amounts, the employer pays the other half. Social Security cap is $118,500 this year, with Medicaid's additional 2.9% continuing past that forever. At the same tax bracket, were I an employee, I would pay out of pocket ~21.525% plus the Medicaid tax for a total of ~24.425%. To warrant that salary, however, I'd have to return considerably more value to most employers than my gross income.

Your property taxes aren't what is deductible, it is the interest payments on your mortgage that are. Uncle Sam doesn't assess property taxes, your county and/or state does. After ~year 10-11, depending on the specific loan, the return on your taxes drops considerably as more and more of the monthly payment becomes principle. (Just wait until you sell the home. One county in this area assesses twice the tax for the sale of your home that the state does, combining for a skim off the top of 1.5%. Most roughly match the state amount for somewhere in the vicinity of 1% off the top.) On my end, the applicable interest deductions have already been applied under the aforementioned "reasonable deductions". There are some unreasonable ones I refuse to apply on ethical grounds.

Self-employment FICA is ~12.5% up to $118.5k. In my state, the state income tax is 5.75%. There are states with much higher state income tax, just as there are some with none - these usually make that up in other ways with higher property taxes, sales taxes, etc. My county assesses a 1.5% tax on net (but charges no income tax if you're employed - don't know if it does so to the employer as I don't have any employees). Without federal, that's already ~18%. Medicaid is 2.9% (~21%). The other ~24% is federal. (The exact percentage comes in at 44.7#% for all of these combined.) If I have a pretty bad year and make only 75% of the usual, I still pay this percentage, even though the living expenses don't decrease significantly relative to income. This is the nature of small business income, and I knew that going in.

Property taxes paid on the house as a percentage of net income, to factor that in, costs 4.2375% of net, by itself bringing taxes paid/year out of net income to 49%. The remaining 1% is easily made up by sales and usage taxes (state and local sales taxes combined) on the typical consumption for 2 working adults. All the other taxes merely add insult to injury, probably somewhere between 0.25% and 1%. This evaluation increasing in bad years by as much as +50%, and decreasing in good years, although I would have to have a phenomenal year to see that drop by half, one that would push the net into the next higher tax bracket siphoning off another 3%-4% to federal income tax. Conversely, I would have to have a phenomenally bad year to drop to a low enough federal bracket to see that tax rate drop from its usual position. If I owned a commercial property, the real property tax rate would be a bit higher as the tax rate on commercial real property is higher than it is for residential.

The mortgage covers the real property tax rate as you saw when you did your paperwork at settlement, and will continue to see when your annual escrow adjustment comes in. It's disturbing how often they low-ball that amount, nudging the mortgage note upwards every year more often than not. Sometimes they overestimate it and you get a small check back. Not often, but sometimes.

Sales and use tax, fuel taxes and personal property taxes add up regardless of income because they're set on things that don't escalate as quickly as income tax, as you've observed. They're not really regressive per se, more that there is only so much clothing you're going to buy, so much food you're going to eat, so much gas you're going to burn and so much value of car you're going to have. Well, until you break into the realms of the absurd at truly high income levels.

It isn't that I'm in bad situation, it is that I am a small business owner that results in a 45% income tax sum plus another 5%-6% in miscellaneous taxes. Out of the remainder all of the living expenses have to be paid, which are largely fixed. In a typical year, they clock in at more than 90% of that balance. In a bad year, the belts tighten quickly, but if the year is bad enough ... yeah, not pretty. I'm striving to adjust living expenses to match the very bottom of the tax bracket. If successful, I could actually start setting aside noteworthy amounts for savings and retirement.

Edit: the way deduction (tax) credits work is not to reduce the amount you pay in tax directly, but to adjust downward your net income before the filing process begins. This is why mere tax credits are of so little value. I don't need the AGI to go down in dribs and drabs. A few thousand downward adjustment to AGI means perhaps several hundreds in tax reduction realized. To be more accurate, roughly $1k less federal tax per $4k spent out-of-pocket. That's not a sound RoI for a credited system. The result is that such credits are opportunistic as means allow rather than providing opportunity in their own right. i.e., they are an added bonus for something that was going to be done anyway.

Small businesses need the tax burden to go down and the filing process to not take several days to a week. This is what will provide the business opportunities that the major party platforms talk about.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
...

Syrus,

You seem to be argung that because gun bans aren't 100% effective, which, I agree, they're not, that they shouldn't be implemented. Could you let me know of any law with a 100% effectiveness rate? If you meant soemthing else with the comment about reductions being statistical and your bolded comment, could you explain further as I clearly didn't understand your point?

On guns being useful to defend against an attack, spoilered as its long and tangential.

Spoiler:
This doesn't work very well in practice. Without special training, people will often freeze in a shock situation, or miss because even if you're a great shot on a shooting range it's very different when you're being attacked.

There's also the problem of the attacker already being armed and in your face before you notice, thus making it much harder to draw your gun without getting shot or stabbed. Unless you're constantly looking out for threarts, which is mentally exhausting and a s!*%ty way to have to live a life, you're likely to be surprised by the confrotation because it's not usual in your life.

I've been mugged myself. I was not armed, but if I had been, I would have been in exactly the same situation: The attacker has a knife out, I don't. He can stab me before I can get any weapon out. Even if I get the weapon out, we're now equal and he has the advantage because he initated the confrontation. In game terms, he has a surprise round on me and a readied action. At low levels, like me, thet's painful. Even if you're actually trained in self-defence, it's hard to concentrate when the adrenaline hits that hard. I mean the police and military personnel aren't perfect in their target selection and they've acxtually had to pass training with their weapons. Civillians are in a worse position, competency wise.


So, here's a couple of questions.

1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

Just curious as to how people will react due to how insanely polarizing this election cycle is.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Pillbug --

The Republican obstructionism in Congress these past few years has *really* stuck in my craw. I think it terribly unfortunate that Mitch McConnell might be a majority leader for 4 more years. But, not in KY, so my words on that point are smoke.

And HRC really *shouldn't* go conservative in SCotUS nomination, to which some others have pointed. On its face, this election should be hers alone to lose; the fact that in some ways it appears she actually might lose is something i find unsettling. While i won't vote for her, and my protest vote will be swallowed up in the redness that is TN, i *do* believe she will win this election. (God help us all, if either of them do.)

Further -- Southern grandmothers? Check. Great cooks? 50%. Meringue? 0%.

Syrus, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but can I ask why you're unwilling to vote for Clinton if you find the fact that she might lose unsettling? I'm not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate of choice, just asking you to expound on your own point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

So, here's a couple of questions.

1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

Just curious as to how people will react due to how insanely polarizing this election cycle is.

Initially, carry on with business as usual. What adjustments have to be made entirely depend on what either administration actually does once inaugurated come late January 2017, and when whatever it is they do takes effect. Until then, there's no reason to react other than to flap my gums.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a dude from Finland who really doesn't have any say in the US elections, but from what I have seen and heard, there are good people and terrible people on both sides of the debate.

Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

Part of me suspects that I'm going to regret posting here, but for now, I stand by what I said, and am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless of their stance. If that is a ludicrous view to have in your opinion, that's not my problem.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Your property taxes aren't what is deductible, it is the interest payments on your mortgage that are. Uncle Sam doesn't assess property taxes, your county and/or state does.

Actually,... no, your property taxes are generally deductible as well. Here's what the IRS says about it:

Quote:
Deductible real estate taxes are generally any state, local, or foreign taxes on real property levied for the general public welfare.

More generally, you can usually deduct (Ibid.)

Quote:


* State, local, and foreign income taxes
* State and local general sales taxes
* State, local, and foreign real estate taxes, and
* State and local personal property taxes


Icyshadow wrote:

I am a dude from Finland who really doesn't have any say in the US elections, but from what I have seen and heard, there are good people and terrible people on both sides of the debate.

Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

Part of me suspects that I'm going to regret posting here, but for now, I stand by what I said, and am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless of their stance. If that is a ludicrous view to have in your opinion, that's not my problem.

Speaking only for myself, It's less a matter of thinking one side has the monopoly on all the nation's wrongs than one side having exhausted the benefit of my doubt. The first election I could legally vote in was Clinton v Bush in '92. That year I attended a Pride march in Washington DC, and some of the demonstrators were carrying signs that read "Hate is not a family value." It's been 24 years, and that motto has only become more pertinent.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Your property taxes aren't what is deductible, it is the interest payments on your mortgage that are. Uncle Sam doesn't assess property taxes, your county and/or state does.

Actually,... no, your property taxes are generally deductible as well. Here's what the IRS says about it:

Quote:
Deductible real estate taxes are generally any state, local, or foreign taxes on real property levied for the general public welfare.

More generally, you can usually deduct (Ibid.)

Quote:


* State, local, and foreign income taxes
* State and local general sales taxes
* State, local, and foreign real estate taxes, and
* State and local personal property taxes

Huh, learn something new every day. :)

As an AGI reduction, however, that shaves ~0.25% off of total taxes paid.;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:


Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

I don't think that anyone actually believes that one side has "total monopoly on all the nation's wrong") -- look at the number of people on this thread who are saying, for example, that Clinton is far from an ideal candidate but Trump is worse. I'm not sure there are a lot of people even saying that.

On the other hand, I'm willing to say (and to believe) that the Republican party platform is dreadful -- it's not only fairly blatantly racist and sexist, but also anti-science, anti-environment, and an economic disaster waiting to happen. The campaign promises of the Republican nominee are beyond dreadful; he's campaigning on a policy of "let's abandon our international committments and commit war crimes in the names of racism and religious intolerance." And most third-party observers agree that the Republican candidates generally have been flagrantly and blatantly lying in a way that the Democrats haven't even begun to approach -- and the nominee, Mr. Trump, is substantially more dishonest than the other Republicans in the race.

As far as "all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others" -- the official party stance is "let's be terrible to others who aren't like us"! Supporting that stance is being terrible to others, and if standing by your beliefs demands that you support that stance, then you are, in fact, being terrible to others.

If your beliefs demand that you support someone, right or wrong, and drive him away from the scene of a bank robbery he committed --- yes, you didn't yourself rob the bank. But you're an enabler, a co-conspirator, and probably an accessory. Depending upon the local laws, you may yourself be guilty of bank robbery even if you "only" drove the getaway car. And you're certainly hurting society by making the banks less secure and, in your own not-so-small way, encouraging people to commit crimes.

So, I will be happy to apologize to anyone who stands by their beliefs in supporting the Republican party without being terrible to others when they can establish to my satisfaction that they actually exist. Until then, they can get in line, behind the unicorns but in front of the leprechauns. And the trolls.


Hitdice wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I am a dude from Finland who really doesn't have any say in the US elections, but from what I have seen and heard, there are good people and terrible people on both sides of the debate.

Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

Part of me suspects that I'm going to regret posting here, but for now, I stand by what I said, and am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless of their stance. If that is a ludicrous view to have in your opinion, that's not my problem.

Speaking only for myself, It's less a matter of thinking one side has the monopoly on all the nation's wrongs than one side having exhausted the benefit of my doubt. The first election I could legally vote in was Clinton v Bush in '92. That year I attended a Pride march in Washington DC, and some of the demonstrators were carrying signs that read "Hate is not a family value." It's been 24 years, and that motto has only become more pertinent.

My favorite protest sign has long been "I can't believe we still have to protest this crap!"


So, how about those two questions I had prior to the second post?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


Speaking only for myself, It's less a matter of thinking one side has the monopoly on all the nation's wrongs than one side having exhausted the benefit of my doubt.

That's my thought, too. Jefferson famously wrote that "it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I'd add to that that it does me no injury for my neighbor to marry his fraternity brother (or her sorority sister); it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It does me no injury for my neighbor to speak Spanish at home, or to worship in a mosque on Friday nights. It doesn't even do me an injury for my Spanish-speaking neighbor to clean houses for $2 an hour under the table because she doesn't have a work permit, because she's working a job that I wouldn't take. (And, frankly, she shouldn't take either, and I'm happy to help her get a better one.)

Those aren't questions about which I have doubts. I can only actually grant the benefit of the doubt to the extent that there are doubts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

So, here's a couple of questions.

1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

Just curious as to how people will react due to how insanely polarizing this election cycle is.

It depends on the circumstances. If Hillary wins, I will breath a sigh of relief and continue my other political activities to try to encourage the US government generally to move "to the left" in various ways, many of which will probably involve overriding bigoted state actions such as North Carolina's bathroom bill.

If Trump wins, I suspect that I will be more concerned with attempting damage control.

In either case, though, there's not much I can do as an individual once the election results are in. Which is why the actual election is important.


Paul Watson wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
...

Syrus,

You seem to be argung that because gun bans aren't 100% effective, which, I agree, they're not, that they shouldn't be implemented. Could you let me know of any law with a 100% effectiveness rate? If you meant soemthing else with the comment about reductions being statistical and your bolded comment, could you explain further as I clearly didn't understand your point?

On guns being useful to defend against an attack, spoilered as its long and tangential.
** spoiler omitted **

Luck of the draw and initiative rolls being what they are, you've read it quite accurately. When faced with such an event, I am persuaded one is in a moment of "total war". I don't like violence at all, but imposing upon me a set of limitations in regard to the means i may lawfully employ to defend myself when the means used to initiate the situation are likely unlawful anyway is of no comfort. I have been threatened with a loaded firearm before, but was lucky to have an aggressor with whom I could reason; while you may not believe it, I think I have a knack for defusing ugly immediate situations -- served me well when i was managing a bar back in the day. That aside and more aside, knives in gunfights are often little-used -- tough to find a lung or liver with the blasted things when bullets are coming your way, right?

Any loss of life is unfortunate, at best. Period. It is difficult to know all the circumstances in such times that one feels his or her life is in danger. One may act in a fashion deemed "wrong" after the fact, but i prefer enabling a strong personal defense to having little choice other than to capitulate. The good guys can't be everywhere we'd like them, so i want people to have better chances of looking after themselves in the meantime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hitdice --

I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
And HRC really *shouldn't* go conservative in SCotUS nomination, to which some others have pointed. On its face, this election should be hers alone to lose; the fact that in some ways it appears she actually might lose is something i find unsettling. While i won't vote for her, and my protest vote will be swallowed up in the redness that is TN, i *do* believe she will win this election. (God help us all, if either of them do.)

I know that Clinton isn't the most progressive option on the ballot this November. But...

Her policies and the DNC platform are more progressive now than they have been in decades. She hasn't steered back to the middle moderate channel. So while I know I can't convince you (or Fergie or Doodlebug) to vote for her, a big part of my decision to vocally support her is the hope that her administration can serve as a stable foundation to build on for the future. Most progressive gains she can hope to make are going to be incremental, but I think incremental gains still count, and they will leave her hopefully Dem successors in a good place to continue pushing further Left.

While can understand the desire to vote Green (Stein), I cannot support them as a party until they make significant changes to get an organized ground game together in all 50 states. I frankly feel that if by some miracle Stein was elected President, she could still accomplish absolutely nothing, because she can't fight both the Repub and Dem opposition in Congress. Major change is going to need to come from the ground up, and that means running serious Green candidates everywhere on the local and state level, to either push the incumbent Dems more progressive or to take their jobs. For the Green Party and other progressive parties candidates to succeed, their best option is to invade & assimilate the Democratic Party. Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition successfully did it back in the 90s, and the Tea Party made major inroads recently. I'm hoping it can work for progressive voices too.

This has been Politics with Toxoplasmosis Cat Lady on National Goblin Radio.

Edit:

Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else.

Clinton also committed early on to overturning Citizens United.


Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Sales taxes can be significant, depending on where you live. That gas tax is a drop in the bucket, if you're in a higher income range. It's hugely regressive, so it's significant for poorer people. Similarly for most of the other consumption taxes. Property taxes can be high, but are often more than offset by mortgage deductions - at least for the early years.

Don't forget tax brackets are marginal, so it's far from as simple as adding your top tax rate to twice the FICA tax. If you're actually in a high tax bracket, you're past the cap on Social Security tax anyway.
In my state, it looks like, without any itemized deductions, you would start to hit 45% somewhere north of a million in income. Even doubled, SS is pretty much irrelevant at that point, since it only applies to the first $100K (or so). Real taxes anywhere near that level will be lower, probably much lower, since no one with that kind of income isn't doing something to get deductions.

I'm not near the top brackets, but I paid around 22% in state/federal/FICA. That would have jumped to 28% if I was self-employed, since I'd be paying SS on my whole income. Even at my income level, a few hundred in gas taxes won't change the percentage. Sales taxes would be another couple percent (Far from all of my money is spent on things sales tax applies to.) Property taxes count, but are offset by deductions. Despite property tax, my actual tax burden dropped when I bought a house. Expenses didn't, but taxes did.

People tend to wildly overestimate how much they pay in taxes. It's possible you're an exception and somehow in a particularly bad situation, but the odds are against it.

45% is combined, not accounting for sales taxes, after all reasonable deductions have been applied, as already explained. Federal tax rate is funky for non-incorporated small businesses because it is (base amount at start of bracket) plus (% over amount #) across a very large bracket. A lot of small businesses will fit in this bracket unless they are retailers, which is a wholly different kettle of fish. Such fun things as "linear footage of shelf space assessments", "road frontage" taxes and so on.

Your Social Security (FICA), federal and state withholding amounts are MATCHED by your employer. Employees pay half of those amounts, the employer pays the other half. Social Security cap is $118,500 this year, with Medicaid's additional 2.9% continuing past that forever. At the same tax bracket, were I an employee, I would pay out of pocket ~21.525% plus the Medicaid tax for a total of ~24.425%. To warrant that salary, however, I'd have to return considerably more value to most employers than my gross income.

Your property taxes aren't what is deductible, it is the interest payments on your mortgage that are. Uncle Sam doesn't assess property taxes, your county and/or state does. After ~year 10-11, depending on the specific loan, the return on your taxes drops considerably as more and more of the monthly payment becomes principle. (Just wait until you sell the home. One county in this area assesses twice the tax for the sale of your home that the state does, combining for a skim off the top of 1.5%. Most roughly match the state amount for somewhere in the vicinity of 1% off the top.) On my end, the applicable interest deductions have already been applied under the aforementioned "reasonable deductions". There are some unreasonable ones I refuse to apply on ethical grounds.

Self-employment FICA is ~12.5% up to $118.5k. In my state, the state income tax is 5.75%. There are states with much higher state income tax, just as there are some with none - these usually make that up in other ways with higher property taxes, sales taxes, etc. My county assesses a 1.5% tax on net (but charges no income tax if you're employed - don't know if it does so to the employer as I don't have any employees). Without federal, that's already ~18%. Medicaid is 2.9% (~21%). The other ~24% is federal. (The exact percentage comes in at 44.7#% for all of these combined.) If I have a pretty bad year and make only 75% of the usual, I still pay this percentage, even though the living expenses don't decrease significantly relative to income. This is the nature of small business income, and I knew that going in.

Property taxes paid on the house as a percentage of net income, to factor that in, costs 4.2375% of net, by itself bringing taxes paid/year out of net income to 49%. The remaining 1% is easily made up by sales and usage taxes (state and local sales taxes combined) on the typical consumption for 2 working adults. All the other taxes merely add insult to injury, probably somewhere between 0.25% and 1%. This evaluation increasing in bad years by as much as +50%, and decreasing in good years, although I would have to have a phenomenal year to see that drop by half, one that would push the net into the next higher tax bracket siphoning off another 3%-4% to federal income tax. Conversely, I would have to have a phenomenally bad year to drop to a low enough federal bracket to see that tax rate drop from its usual position. If I owned a commercial property, the real property tax rate would be a bit higher as the tax rate on commercial real property is higher than it is for residential.

The mortgage covers the real property tax rate as you saw when you did your paperwork at settlement, and will continue to see when your annual escrow adjustment comes in. It's disturbing how often they low-ball that amount, nudging the mortgage note upwards every year more often than not. Sometimes they overestimate it and you get a small check back. Not often, but sometimes.

Sales and use tax, fuel taxes and personal property taxes add up regardless of income because they're set on things that don't escalate as quickly as income tax, as you've observed. They're not really regressive per se, more that there is only so much clothing you're going to buy, so much food you're going to eat, so much gas you're going to burn and so much value of car you're going to have. Well, until you break into the realms of the absurd at truly high income levels.

I may be confused, but your numbers don't seem to add up to me.

If you're making less than 118K, your effective federal income tax rate is below 20% - and that's before any deductions. Your marginal rate is 28%, but that doesn't apply to all of your income.
If you're making more than that, you can't just add the 12.5% for FICA, since it caps. By the time you're up over 200K, the SS part is almost halved. And that's where you need to be to get to 24% fed income.
All of that without deductions, so your actual income will be higher and your taxes a smaller percentage of that.

It's difficult to factor things like property taxes as a percentage of income, since they don't actually depend on income. My property taxes are likely a higher percentage of my income - largely since my income is lower, but that percentage would drop if I made more money.
The deduction for property taxes offsets that to a degree (a higher degree the higher income bracket you're in). At this point the mortgage interest deduction reduces my taxes below what I was paying before. As you say, that'll drop over time.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Hitdice --

I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.

He's not running. He isn't even running as a write in. You can write him in if you want, but it has no more effect than writing in your own name. Or Mickey Mouse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Hitdice --

I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.

Thanks for the answer. As is no doubt clear from my "open exchange of ideas" with Doodlebug, I wouldn't abstain entirely, but then I'm not the boss of you. :)


thejeff wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Hitdice --

I do not believe she was the best candidate. I backed Sanders during the primaries because I found the moral bases of his proposals of higher value. This has more to do with his anti-interventionist stance and his anti-Citizens United stance than anything else. To hearken back to a question put to me earlier by Fergie and Quark Blast, I don't yet know if I will write him in or not. There is a strong urge within me to abstain from the presidential vote altogether.

He's not running. He isn't even running as a write in. You can write him in if you want, but it has no more effect than writing in your own name. Or Mickey Mouse.

True. Further compounded by the great beast that is the Electoral College. We two have covered this ground before.


Platforms and policy declarations are much like piecrust promises -- "easily made, easily broken" as so well put by the great philosopher Mary Poppins. HRC had a big hill to climb with me, anyway, and I admit to a certain mistrust of the woman; I will believe her on the CU point when i see it. I don't yet. I admit my bias.


Is it just me, or is there an inundation of math in here?? Blech. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?

Bear in mind is that voting in the US is not compulsory, and voting turnout, even for presidential elections, is generally terrible in most of the US. It typically averages around 50% of the eligible citizens, which of course is much less than the number of people living in the USA. So if you can get 25% of the electorate to come and vote for you, you've basically won. (Which is why get-out-the-vote efforts are so important.)

Add to that the large number of "my party, right or wrong" voters who would vote for a piece of string if it had (R) written next to it, and you can see both that his floor is rather high, and the hurdle he needs to clear is remarkably low.

As to why people want to vote for him -- in my mind, a lot of it is likely to be wishful thinking. I know a number of Tea Party supporters, for example, who have a track record of voting for people who want to cut taxes on the rich because they themselves want to be rich. Not because they are rich -- none of them actually have, as the phrase goes, a pot to piss in -- but because they have grand visions of someday becoming rich through unspecified underwear-gnome plans, and don't want it all to go up in smoke. The idea that they are more likely to stay poor (in part because their ideas for getting rich all seem to be vaporware) or get even poorer if something bad happens like an accident or a house fire, doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

There's also a lot of scapegoating going on. There's a very politically incorrect phrase in the States that nevertheless has been around for a long time and is very applicable: "poor white trash." Back in the Jim Crow era, the "poor white trash" could often be counted on to vote for any sort of nonsense to benefit the plutocrats, as long as the plutocrats respected that that sort of person wasn't THAT sort of person, if you know what I mean. ("We may be poor, but at least we ain't n-words.") It's much better to be the second-lowest rung on God's ladder than it is to risk being passed by the lowest.

Now, you might say "wow, that's stupid,...." and I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you. If I offered to kick you if you voted for me, but I promised to kick that guy over there twice, I'd like to think you'd be smart enough to turn down that offer. But a lot of people would apparently take me up on that offer.


Icyshadow wrote:

I am a dude from Finland who really doesn't have any say in the US elections, but from what I have seen and heard, there are good people and terrible people on both sides of the debate.

Saying only one side has total monopoly on all the nation's wrongs (let alone all evils in the world) is not only intellectually dishonest, but also insulting to all the people who stand by their beliefs without being terrible to others.

What's dishonest about it? Because it can't possibly be true?

Why not?

It's a long way to go from "both sides have bad people" to "both sides have a point".


Snorter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as racist by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly racist.

So, you're saying that you accept all the allegations made against Hilary Clinton over the last 40 years are indisputably true?

Because, if a lot of people say a thing, over a long period of time, that makes it impossible to argue against.
In your opinion.

Because after all, "If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as dishonest by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly dishonest."

Right?

You missed the part where he said a sufficiently wide range of independent groups. Her political enemies is not a wide range of groups.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Is it just me, or is there an inundation of math in here?? Blech. :)

They're all in the pocket of Big Sliderule.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

So, here's a couple of questions.

1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

Just curious as to how people will react due to how insanely polarizing this election cycle is.

Initially, carry on with business as usual. What adjustments have to be made entirely depend on what either administration actually does once inaugurated come late January 2017, and when whatever it is they do takes effect. Until then, there's no reason to react other than to flap my gums.

What he said. With persistence.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Platforms and policy declarations are much like piecrust promises -- "easily made, easily broken" as so well put by the great philosopher Mary Poppins. HRC had a big hill to climb with me, anyway, and I admit to a certain mistrust of the woman; I will believe her on the CU point when i see it. I don't yet. I admit my bias.

Well, you won't see it unless she's elected.

But if you're waiting around for Trump to try to overturn CU,... well, he's not even suggested an interest in doing that, and the platform, piecrust or not, promises to do exactly the opposite. You think you're more likely to get satisfaction from him?


It's been several pages since, but I have been VERY clear on my disapproval of Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
It's been several pages since, but I have been VERY clear on my disapproval of Trump.

No, you haven't. Because you're willing to allow him to win. That's not disapproval.


I don't mean to speak for Syrus, but at a certain point, if you live in a red state, that's that in terms of allowing him to win.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?

Bear in mind is that voting in the US is not compulsory, and voting turnout, even for presidential elections, is generally terrible in most of the US. It typically averages around 50% of the eligible citizens, which of course is much less than the number of people living in the USA. So if you can get 25% of the electorate to come and vote for you, you've basically won. (Which is why get-out-the-vote efforts are so important.)

Add to that the large number of "my party, right or wrong" voters who would vote for a piece of string if it had (R) written next to it, and you can see both that his floor is rather high, and the hurdle he needs to clear is remarkably low.

As to why people want to vote for him -- in my mind, a lot of it is likely to be wishful thinking. I know a number of Tea Party supporters, for example, who have a track record of voting for people who want to cut taxes on the rich because they themselves want to be rich. Not because they are rich -- none of them actually have, as the phrase goes, a pot to piss in -- but because they have grand visions of someday becoming rich through unspecified underwear-gnome plans, and don't want it all to go up in smoke. The idea that they are more likely to stay poor (in part because their ideas for getting rich all seem to be vaporware) or get even poorer if something bad happens like an accident or a house fire, doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

There's also a lot of...

First, that is only relevant if uneducated white men vote to a greater degree than all the groups Trump has alienated. And similarly, that there are more piece-of-string voters for (R) than for (D).

Second, if all the alienated groups have to do to NOT have Trump as president is GO AND VOTE, one would think it could be worth a shot?

Third, why is voter turnout so low? I understand you need to register to do it, but why is that such a hurdle?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

While i am certainly liking the lightheartedness of the last while, maybe we should return to some more . . . *realistic* content?

Though i certainly don't want to break the cease-fire . . . .

More on topic, a Yahoo! article written by the AFP discussing California Democrat gun owners and a referendum on gun control in that state on the 8th November ballot.

Thoughts?

That was a long way to go for the article to say basically... nothing. I do cringe every time someone says "military-style weapons" though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not willing to allow HRC to win, either. But y'all aren't voting for me, are you? Nor should we distance ourselves from the reality of which way TN's EC votes will go. As BNW and others have acknowledged -- an anti-HRC vote in a state that will in all likelihood go to Trump in the first place is a moot point.

I am not voting for either of them.


Sissyl wrote:
First, that is only relevant if uneducated white men vote to a greater degree than all the groups Trump has alienated.

... which is generally true. Whites vote more than blacks, men vote more than women (I think; I should check on this), and older voters, who tend to have lower education levels due to demographic and social change, tend to vote more than younger. If you control for age, educated voters vote more than less educated ones, but overall, voting behavior is in his favor.

Quote:
Second, if all the alienated groups have to do to NOT have Trump as president is GO AND VOTE, one would think it could be worth a shot?

That's been suggested, yes. But they also need to vote the right way... voting for imaginary candidates like Tony Stark or Jill Stein won't actually do anything. But, yes, "GO AND VOTE" is an important message that every candidate and party is pumping right now and will continue to pump.

Quote:
Third, why is voter turnout so low? I understand you need to register to do it, but why is that such a hurdle?

There are several reasons. Voting happens on a Tuesday in the US (for historical reasons relating to how long it took to take a wagon from the farm to the county seat and back), which means it's in the workday. It's hard for people to take time off work, and public transportation means that it's impractical to get there even had you the time.

There's also been a deliberate, long-standing effort to make voting more difficult. I will allow your Web browser to inform you of which party has been behind this for the past few decades. But by making voting more inconvenient than it needs to be, especially in precincts that are dominated by your opponent, you can artificially decrease their votes and increase your margin.

But beyond that, we're back to the special-snowflake voters who feel that they don't actually have a lot of influence. With (literally) millions of people casting votes in my home state, what are the odds that my vote will end up being significant? The result is that unless there's a specially competitive election or there's a specific issue that really empowers you, voting is often felt as a nuisance chore with no real benefit.

3,451 to 3,500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards