American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

And do you think he did that just to spend it on a failed presidential campaign?

He can’t tweet. He can’t get corporate support. He has legal fights opening up on multiple fronts.

He’s going to golf in his guilded cage, do some rallies here and there, and sometime between now and 2024, his heart is going to pop like a balloon, and that will be that.

To me this is our last chance at killing any hope of him running for president again. If someone has the guts and will to actually get him into an orange jumpsuit they will have my utmost appreciation.

I dont want to rely on hoping his health fails him, his dad made it to 93.

[nfotiu]

Trump won the first time by convincing enough rust belt workers that Mexicans and other foreigners are stealing their jobs and he was going to come in and stop that. That was a winning message that created a path through those blue labor states.

He has pretty much abandoned that message and everything else. His messages now are just crazy conspiracy theories, COVID denials, racist propaganda (directed at Americans now) and election stealing lies.
That's a platform that can fill up some rallies and fire them up, but it isn't going to be a message that can snowball and grow support.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Trump won the first time by convincing enough rust belt workers that Mexicans and other foreigners are stealing their jobs and he was going to come in and stop that. That was a winning message that created a path through those blue labor states.

He has pretty much abandoned that message and everything else. His messages now are just crazy conspiracy theories, COVID denials, racist propaganda (directed at Americans now) and election stealing lies.
That's a platform that can fill up some rallies and fire them up, but it isn't going to be a message that can snowball and grow support.

I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by greyshep

To me this is our last chance at killing any hope of him running for president again. If someone has the guts and will to actually get him into an orange jumpsuit they will have my utmost appreciation.

I dont want to rely on hoping his health fails him, his dad made it to 93.

A competent, boring Biden administration will do more to take the wind out of another Trump run than anything.

[opendoor]

Trump did basically everything wrong in 2020, yet he still got 74M votes. People point out that he only won the 2016 election due to 75K votes over 3 states. But using that same logic he only lost the 2020 election by just over 100K votes in 3 states (and only missed winning via tied EC votes by 40K votes over 3 states); and that was against an exceptionally motivated opposition.

He could easily win again, particularly since Biden probably isn't running again so there likely won't be a big incumbent advantage.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by greyshep

To me this is our last chance at killing any hope of him running for president again. If someone has the guts and will to actually get him into an orange jumpsuit they will have my utmost appreciation.

I dont want to rely on hoping his health fails him, his dad made it to 93.

Roger Ailes died right after he lost his power.

Time is a flat circle.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Trump won the first time by convincing enough rust belt workers that Mexicans and other foreigners are stealing their jobs and he was going to come in and stop that. That was a winning message that created a path through those blue labor states.

He has pretty much abandoned that message and everything else. His messages now are just crazy conspiracy theories, COVID denials, racist propaganda (directed at Americans now) and election stealing lies.
That's a platform that can fill up some rallies and fire them up, but it isn't going to be a message that can snowball and grow support.

He won on that the first time, and then took that voting base and brain washed them. They are a 70 million strong cult now. It doesnt matter what he says, they want him to be their leader.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

He won on that the first time, and then took that voting base and brain washed them. They are a 70 million strong cult now. It doesnt matter what he says, they want him to be their leader.

Nah, it's a 40 million person cult, and 30 million would vote for anyone who doesn't have a (D) by their name. That 30 million is shrinking though.

[GreenLantern2814]

https://www.axios.com/national-guard...0d32eef62.html

Former Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy belongs in prison.

[ResAlien]

In more news to excite the fiscally conservative Democrats the stimulus bill that is still dragging ass to get passed is having the income levels to receive money dropped so that fewer people will receive cheques. Imagine the anarchy if someone who wasn't out giving handy J’s for grocery money got a single red cent? It would be a travesty.

Thankfully things are looking up and those income levels are lowered now. Your (not $2000) $1400 is on the way sometime probably in late May? Glad there was such a rush to get this done.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

In more news to excite the fiscally conservative Democrats the stimulus bill that is still dragging ass to get passed is having the income levels to receive money dropped so that fewer people will receive cheques. Imagine the anarchy if someone who wasn't out giving handy J’s for grocery money got a single red cent? It would be a travesty.

Thankfully things are looking up and those income levels are lowered now. Your (not $2000) $1400 is on the way sometime probably in late May? Glad there was such a rush to get this done.

$2000 cHeCks OuT tHe dOor iMmEdiAtEly!

Centrist Democrats are pretty much Reagan-era Republicans without the blatant bigotry at this point.

[nik-]

Centrist demoncrats!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

In more news to excite the fiscally conservative Democrats the stimulus bill that is still dragging ass to get passed is having the income levels to receive money dropped so that fewer people will receive cheques. Imagine the anarchy if someone who wasn't out giving handy J’s for grocery money got a single red cent? It would be a travesty.

Thankfully things are looking up and those income levels are lowered now. Your (not $2000) $1400 is on the way sometime probably in late May? Glad there was such a rush to get this done.

Yes, you are right. Screwing over the people really financially affected by COVID by giving 400 billion dollars in aid to people not affected is the caring, humanitarian approach. What's the win here for you if they give $2000 to everyone? That you get a policy from the progressives passed and you can all virtual high five each other?

Lowering income is being proposed to more target people who lost their jobs or suffered hardships from COVID, since those lower income groups were much more likely to be affected. You seem to care nothing about people actually hurt financially by COVID, and are all about ensuring $2000 for everyone.

I can take Rubecube's argument a little more seriously. They did promise it, and I guess they should live up to their promise. But it really is a terrible policy that is not directing the money to the right people, and in the end limits what can be done for the people who really have got a bad deal from this pandemic.

And you guys calling everyone Reagan centrists, or Biden boot licker, or corporate boot lickers just goes to show you really don't understand what your target about or are serious about having real discussions about it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Yes, you are right. Screwing over the people really financially affected by COVID by giving 400 billion dollars in aid to people not affected is the caring, humanitarian approach. What's the win here for you if they give $2000 to everyone? That you get a policy from the progressives passed and you can all virtual high five each other?

Except we haven't said that at all. We've said get the checks out and then claw it back at tax time from the people who didn't need it.

Lowering income is being proposed to more target people who lost their jobs or suffered hardships from COVID, since those lower income groups were much more likely to be affected. You seem to care nothing about people actually hurt financially by COVID, and are all about ensuring $2000 for everyone.

And we've gone over this before, too. There are going to be people who aren't in those lower income groups who did suffer hardships from COVID or lost their jobs who now won't get the assistance. Your attitude seems to be "Tough ####. F those people."

I've asked you this before but I don't think you answered. Is it better that 20 people who don't need the cheques get them as long as it means everyone who does need one also gets one, or is it better if 20 people who do need the cheques don't get them as long as none of the people who don't need the cheques don't get one?

From a political standpoint, how do you think those people who voted for Biden/Democrats and did need the cheques but are no longer going to receive one are going to behave in future elections?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except we haven't said that at all. We've said get the checks out and then claw it back at tax time from the people who didn't need it.

That may sound good in theory. But it hasn't been proposed by anyone in government yet. Giving people $2000 and a surprise $2000 bill at tax time next year isn't going to be that popular. Do you base it on 2019 income or 2020 income? Base it on Federal taxable income, gross income, agi? People wouldn't know if they were getting clawed back or not if they were on the cusp.

And we've gone over this before, too. There are going to be people who aren't in those lower income groups who did suffer hardships from COVID or lost their jobs who now won't get the assistance. Your attitude seems to be "Tough ####. F those people."

I think money should go to all people affected regardless of income. The $400/week boost in unemployment is a much more significant help to those who need it. Some money needs to be spent to make sure everyone who is supposed to get that, gets it. I'd rather see that $400 go up and the $2000 go down, or at least be more targeted.

I've asked you this before but I don't think you answered. Is it better that 20 people who don't need the cheques get them as long as it means everyone who does need one also gets one, or is it better if 20 people who do need the cheques don't get them as long as none of the people who don't need the cheques don't get one?

From a political standpoint, how do you think those people who voted for Biden/Democrats and did need the cheques but are no longer going to receive one are going to behave in future elections?

All checks sent so far have been income limited, and I don't think anyone thought future checks wouldn't be cut off at some income either. Your question isn't the right question in my mind. If you take 100 people and 25 are affected, I want to give those 25 all the money available, and not give a quarter of it to everyone. With no income limits, you are giving it to 75 not affected, and 25 affected. With the higher income limits in the first bill, it's probably more like 50/24. A little lower, and you are getting more like 20/20, and at least are getting a better ratio of targeting to the right people. Figure out other policies like tax credits to help out the middle income people affected.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That may sound good in theory. But it hasn't been proposed by anyone in government yet. Giving people $2000 and a surprise $2000 bill at tax time next year isn't going to be that popular. Do you base it on 2019 income or 2020 income? Base it on Federal taxable income, gross income, agi? People wouldn't know if they were getting clawed back or not if they were on the cusp.

You're essentially asking those questions right now and in doing so taking longer to get the checks out the door.

I think money should go to all people affected regardless of income. The $400/week boost in unemployment is a much more significant help to those who need it. Some money needs to be spent to make sure everyone who is supposed to get that, gets it. I'd rather see that $400 go up and the $2000 go down, or at least be more targeted.

That's fine, but some people who do need that $1400 are going to be left out under the current plan, right?

Your question isn't the right question in my mind. If you take 100 people and 25 are affected, I want to give those 25 all the money available, and not give a quarter of it to everyone. With no income limits, you are giving it to 75 not affected, and 25 affected. With the higher income limits in the first bill, it's probably more like 50/24. A little lower, and you are getting more like 20/20, and at least are getting a better ratio of targeting to the right people.

So then what you're saying is you're okay with some people who need it not getting it as long as people who don't need it also don't get it. There's really no other way to read that.

Figure out other policies like tax credits to help out the middle income people affected.

And how does that immediately help people who have rent to pay or are accruing interest on credit card bills? You're just putting people further behind the 8-ball the longer you make them wait.

There's also this:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1367141567987920898

[PepsiFree]

I'm sorry, am I supposed to believe that someone who:
- Continuously claims the $1400 cheques are actually $2000 (which they are not)
- Would rather see people who desperately need them go without until we can be sure people who don't need them don't receive them, even if it takes many months
- Defends this based on the completely manufactured idea that these people will actually get more than the $1400 if they wait (which is not on the table)
- And would also be happier if even some people who need them don't get them, so long as the number of recipients who don't need them is also reduced


... is the one taking a humanitarian approach, in-touch with reality, and who actually cares about people affected? I mean, strong "lol" here. This is some fantasyland stuff.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're essentially asking those questions right now and in doing so taking longer to get the checks out the door.



That's fine, but some people who do need that $1400 are going to be left out under the current plan, right?



So then what you're saying is you're okay with some people who need it not getting it as long as people who don't need it also don't get it. There's really no other way to read that.



And how does that immediately help people who have rent to pay or are accruing interest on credit card bills? You're just putting people further behind the 8-ball the longer you make them wait.

There's also this:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1367141567987920898

Anything less than a $2000 flat check under the same terms as before will result in a big failure in 2022 and 2024 elections.

Pretty disappointing.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm sorry, am I supposed to believe that someone who:
- Continuously claims the $1400 cheques are actually $2000 (which they are not)
- Would rather see people who desperately need them go without until we can be sure people who don't need them don't receive them, even if it takes many months
- Defends this based on the completely manufactured idea that these people will actually get more than the $1400 if they wait (which is not on the table)
- And would also be happier if even some people who need them don't get them, so long as the number of recipients who don't need them is also reduced


... is the one taking a humanitarian approach, in-touch with reality, and who actually cares about people affected? I mean, strong "lol" here. This is some fantasyland stuff.

The argument was always that the Democrats wanted to send $2000 last, but compromised on $600 with a promise to make it $2000. I guess that message got lost in the speeches and sound bites, but it was the way I always understood it.

People need some desperate help to get their life back on track. Getting $2000 to cover overdue bills is not going to make much of a dent in that. I don't know why right now is the magic date. This pandemic has been going on for over a year. My message has always been the same. Get the people who are hurting $10,000 even if it takes an extra month or two to figure it out. Giving everyone $2000 now takes away that ability.

The whole $1400 or $2000 idea should be scrapped. That's a huge pool of money that can be better spent to actually really help people who need it. There's a limit to how much is the right amount of money to borrow and put back in the economy without starting to create problems. This bill is already probably over that, so there is not going to be another chance to spend this much money.



Can somebody explain what problem is being solved by sending $2000 as a one time payment to everyone? I see it as a slap in the face to the people who really need help.

Canada is not sending out $2000 checks to everyone right now. I am puzzled why so many Canadians feel so strongly that the US needs to.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Canada is not sending out $2000 checks to everyone right now. I am puzzled why so many Canadians feel so strongly that the US needs to.

Because our government didn't #### up the entire response and take a bad issue and turn it into a calamity. Sucks that once again Dems gotta bail out a GOP created problem, but what else is new? It's not complicated, the longer it takes to get the money out, or the less money that goes out, the easier it's going to be for the GOP in 2022. As always Dems can't see the forest through the trees, continuously thinking trying to find a "perfect" solution is better than taking a cheap win.