Starker on 1/6/2019 at 21:45
Except Maddow isn't a journalist. She's a news commentator and it's perfectly fine if she's opinionated. That's her job. Not that you're one to talk about sources, since you seem to uncritically swallow any conspiracy theory that seems to agree with you.
Oh, I can do charts too: (
https://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/10/11/democrats-maintain-edge-as-party-more-concerned-for-latinos-but-views-similar-to-2012/ph_2016-10-11_politics_4-04/)
Look especially where the row "Foreign born" has only 17% identifying as liberal. Also, note where college educated people are more liberal than people with less education. Also, contrast with Canada where conservatives embrace immigration, because they understand that immigrants are more likely to be conservative than not. (...and to deal with Quebec and for a host of other reasons, but that's a topic for another day) Ask yourself, why is that Latino voters come to vote for Democrats in the first place in such big numbers? Is it because they are so extraordinarily liberal or is it because the other party is pretty openly vilifying them?
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
You missed the most important thing Hispanics weren't even the point. You jumped to that conclusion incorrectly. Probably because you're programmed to automatically associate immigrant with "Latin American Hispanic". Here's what I was actually referring to: (
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/99-muslim-43-000-somali-refugees-settled-in-us-under-obama)
The fact that you immediately jumped to "Muh Mexicans" and didn't understand that I was making a 1 for 1 analogy indicates a gap in how well informed you are on this issue.
Oh pardon me, I had no idea you were referring to a completely different batshit insane conspiracy theory. Except, you know, refugees can't vote.
Also, while I'm sure it's technically possible that those (apparently liberal enough to vote Democrat) 43 000 Somali muslims taken in over the decade and distributed all over the US can all become citizens eventually, it's hardly a number that puts even a dent in the vote.
Pyrian on 2/6/2019 at 03:59
Lol @ citing Hispanics voting for Democrats in 2018. Look, y'all didn't HAVE to nominate and elect Mr. "maybe some of them are good people".
Nicker on 2/6/2019 at 07:51
Tony. You can't open a fresh box of Frosted Logical Fallacies until you finish the old box.
Mr.Duck on 2/6/2019 at 19:03
I will vote for the one that gives me the best Taco Tuesday deal.
Renzatic on 3/6/2019 at 01:25
In my country, Taco Tuesday will be the day when tacos are mandatory.
Starker on 4/6/2019 at 03:39
Who knew making tax cuts pay for themselves could be so complicated?
Quote:
(
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/study-trump-tax-cuts-failed-growth-investment.html)
The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn't about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.
The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.
It's of course possible that the growth in wages would take longer than the year or so that has passed since the tax cut to show up. If the Trump tax cut had encouraged new business investment, it might take years for the new investment to bear fruit. But the study looks directly at business investment and finds ... nothing:
Inline Image:
https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2019/05/29/29-trump-tax-plan-fail-chart.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpgSupporters of the Trump tax cuts insisted not only that they would promote growth, but that they would promote so much growth the measure would pay for itself. Even moderates like Susan Collins repeated assurances by the party's pseudo-economists that the plan would not increase the deficit. So far, the growth feedback from the tax cuts has made up about 5 percent of the plan's revenue loss, a mere 95 percent shy of the predictions.
The passage of the plan was met with a coordinated wave of corporate public-relations announcements of worker bonuses. But the paper finds no widespread increase in bonuses or worker compensation.
When assessing these arguments, keep a close eye on the number of Republican officials or conservative policy-makers who revise their position on the Trump tax cuts in light of the data. If their true primary goal was to increase business investment, then the complete failure of a highly expensive program to achieve its stated goal would lead them to question their support. Why not cancel the Trump tax cuts and use the couple trillion dollars in lost revenue to fund a more effective growth-promoting policy?
So far, the number of Republicans reassessing their support for the Trump tax cuts is, give or take, zero. What this suggests is that the alleged growth-incentivizing secondary effects of the plan were rationales, and the primary effect — giving business owners more money — was the hidden main goal all along.
bjack on 4/6/2019 at 04:17
Quote Posted by Renzatic
In my country, Taco Tuesday will be the day when tacos are mandatory.
I owe you a “cool” for that one! Look me up if you are in the PNW. Fuck politics, you're a funny guy! How funny are you? Like a clown? Are you here
to amuse me? God's speed “Res”. I don't always agree with your viewpoint, but I respect you. And, I defend your right to speak freely. You are about the most balanced individual here. It must be difficult. It is for me. I'm what was once considered a moderate and now I am a hateful cis-gendered white male. Times will change. I hope that change will not be too radical. Been through this 4 times. Each time is getting worse. Hope for the best. :)
Tony_Tarantula on 4/6/2019 at 11:51
[video=youtube_share;aW9YL81oICo]https://youtu.be/aW9YL81oICo[/video]
Video relevant for reasons that will become evident if actually watched.
Nicker on 4/6/2019 at 13:05
Tony, you still have apologies to make before you stir up more shit.
Starker on 4/6/2019 at 19:44
Tony's trusted source Wohl is caught with his pants down again (thankfully not literally):
Quote:
(
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jacob-wohl-admits-he-lied-about-plan-to-swing-political-markets)
Blundering pro-Trump political operative Jacob Wohl admitted in a story published Tuesday that he had hatched a plan to influence political betting markets with hoaxes—a month after lying to The Daily Beast and claiming that he had never been involved in such a plan.
In May, The Daily Beast (
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jacob-wohls-business-plan-make-shit-up-to-game-political-betting-sites) reported on Wohl's business plan to raise money for the Arlington Center for Political Intelligence, a group he claimed would “make shit up” about Democratic politicians to influence political betting markets. At the time, Wohl, who has become notorious for his failed attempts to smear (
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-crazy-cabal-trying-to-smear-robert-mueller) Robert Mueller and Democratic presidential hopeful (
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jacob-wohl-defends-tricking-kid-to-accuse-pete-buttigieg-of-sexual-assault-he-got-a-caramel-frappuccino) Pete Buttigieg with sexual assault allegations, insisted he hadn't created the plan.
In a Washington Post story on Tuesday, though, Wohl admitted that he had created the fundraising plan, including the portion about influencing betting markets with hoaxes. This is far from the first time Wohl has been caught in a lie. In March, Wohl (
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jacob-wohl-faked-death-threats-against-himself) was caught faking death threats against himself and reporting them to police, a possible crime.