Jump to content

putting the P in politics


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DustyDreamer said:

"...in all cases Democrat run and managed..."

Ok, as long as President Biden gets to pick and choose too. I'm tired of my tax money going to prop up failed Republican states. 

And those states not only don't even try to fake showing a modicum of gratitude, they make little to no effort to improve their lot in life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dacapo said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/28/trump-states-bailout-sanctuary-cities-215507

 

this is a game that

1. is wrong at this moment

2. he will not win...either in the short tern or the long run.

I'm opposed to the idea of sanctuary anything, but, this is simply ludicrous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

More "Big P" politics. Get ready...

Quote

For a certain segment of the American electorate, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic birthed a 2020 nightmare scenario, with an embattled President Donald Trump delaying the November election.

But the prospect that terrifies election experts isn’t the idea that Trump moves the election (something he lacks the power to do); it’s something altogether more plausible: Despite an ongoing pandemic, the 2020 election takes place as planned, and America is totally unprepared.

The nightmare scenario goes something like this: Large numbers of voters become disenfranchised because they’re worried it’s not safe to vote and that participating makes it more likely they catch the coronavirus. Voter-registration efforts, almost always geared toward in-person sign-ups, bring in very few new voters. A surge of demand for absentee ballots overwhelms election administrators, who haven’t printed enough ballots. In some states, like Texas, where fear of coronavirus isn’t a valid reason to request an absentee ballot, turnout drops as Americans are forced to choose between voting in person (and risking contact with the coronavirus) or not voting at all.

At the same time, confidence in the cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service — whose coronavirus funding President Donald Trump has already threatened to block — teeters, and its involvement in handling so many absentee votes causes concern. Much as happened during the Wisconsin primary, a flood of mailed-in ballots makes it impossible to get full returns on election night, with heavily blue Democratic cities being, as usual, among the slowest to count. Trump declares victory based on those early returns, and again claims that the yet-to-be-counted absentees are tainted with fraud. Days later, with those votes counted, Joe Biden is declared the victor. Across the political spectrum, faith in the democratic process disintegrates as Americans question both the validity of the election and the ability of the government to respond to challenges it should have seen coming.

In surveying this scenario, what’s especially frightening is that it’s not far-fetched — at least according to University of California, Irvine professor Rick Hasen, one of the nation’s top experts in election law and the author of “Election Meltdown.” While much of the hand-wringing for the past month of more has been forward-looking — how coronavirus will change life at some point in the future — Hasen says the coronavirus is already changing American democracy, and that unless we adapt swiftly we’re headed for a world of pain in November.

Late last week, I interviewed Hasen and walked through what the coronavirus pandemic will actually mean for the 2020 election — not in terms of its impact on the Trump or Biden campaigns, but on American democracy itself. What follows is a transcript of that conversation, edited for length and readability.

Zack Stanton: More or less since the start of the stay-at-home orders in March, one of the things people have fretted about is whether Donald Trump can postpone the November election. And the answer is that he cannot, correct?

Rick Hasen: That's right. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for presidential elections. And Congress set it in a statute that dates back to, I believe, 1845. So it would take an act of Congress to change the date of the election. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that Trump could do that could affect the outcome of the election. And there are two at the top of my list, which I can tell you about if you're interested.

Stanton: Please do.

Hasen: Sure. So one is that the president tries to use some kind of emergency power or something to shut down cities on Election Day in the name of promoting health and preventing the spread of disease. And of course, if you stop people in Detroit and Philadelphia from voting, that would affect election outcomes. The other is that — and this really gets into the technical weeds, but it's constitutionally possible — the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to set the rules for choosing that state’s presidential electors for the Electoral College. Every state has said, "Well, we're going to let the voters choose." But in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that state legislatures can always take that power back to themselves.

So you can imagine a situation where Trump tries to get the [Republican-controlled] Wisconsin Legislature, for example, to choose the electors itself. Now, I think if that happened, there would be rioting in the streets. This would be a profoundly anti-democratic move, but I think under the Constitution, this would be permissible. The wrinkle there is whether the state legislature could do this without the approval of the governor — Wisconsin’s governor being a Democrat who would obviously block it if his approval was required. Same situation in North Carolina, same situation in Pennsylvania…

Stanton: And Michigan.

Hasen: … but not Florida.

Stanton: That's interesting. So, the Constitution is vague on the question of whether or not a governor would be needed for that?

Hasen: The Constitution says that state legislatures set the rules for choosing electors. But there have been a number of cases where the court has tried to figure out whether “legislature,” in different contexts, means the legislative body that we call the legislature, or whether it means the legislative process, which would include, for example, the governor. There is some conflicting Supreme Court authority on this question, including a 5-4 case that depended on Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote, and Kennedy is now gone. This is at least a theoretical possibility — and it worries me much more than postponing the election.

Stanton: What does precedent say?

Hasen: The weight of the authority is that ordinary legislation would be required — which would mean a governor would be involved. But it’s not clear that the current majority of the Supreme Court, which takes a more originalist view, would actually agree with that. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a very strong dissent — one of the strongest he's ever written — in the most recent case where the court considered an analogous question. This was in an Arizona redistricting case, where the question was whether the voters could take away the power of the state legislature to draw districts, and instead give it to [an independent] commission. And the majority, which was made up of the four liberals and Justice Kennedy, said that "legislature," in this context, means the legislative process, which includes the initiative process in Arizona. Roberts read the word "legislature" much more narrowly: “No, ‘legislature’ has to have at least a role for the legislature.”

So, it would be a real constitutional mess if it came down to that issue. But it would be much more of a political earthquake. I mean, imagine the voters of a state being told, "You don't get to vote for president; the legislature is going to do it."

Stanton: In the scenario of the president declaring a state of emergency over coronavirus and depressing turnout, is that anything a governor has the ability to do on their own? Could, say, the Republican governor of Georgia do that to depress turnout in Atlanta?

Hasen: Sure! I mean, that would depend on what state law says the governor can do. Remember, the governor of Ohio got the health director to declare that polling places had to be closed for the primary, which led the secretary of state to reschedule the primary. That was a controversial move, and I was very troubled by it even though I thought it was right. Governor Tony Evers tried a similar move in Wisconsin. I think if something like that happened, you'd have people running to court claiming that this is a violation of people’s rights, especially if it happened just for Election Day. It would be, again, a kind of constitutionally questionable hardball move, and I think even the most self-interested of politicians is going to realize that the political backlash to something like that could be enormous.

Stanton: It seems like part of the complexity here is that though the actual date of a federal election is set at the national level — "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November" — the actual administration of the elections themselves varies widely by state.

Hasen: That's correct.

Stanton: So, we have a national pandemic, which states are responding to quite differently. And we have a federal election, which states will administer quite differently. And all of this is colliding. What is, in your mind, the nightmare scenario?

Hasen: I'm worried about large numbers of voters being disenfranchised, through no fault of their own, because it's not safe to vote. That's my No. 1 concern. And so I've been working with an ad hoc committee of leaders in law, tech, media and politics, we've come up with a set of recommendations for how to avoid an election meltdown. States have not done enough "plan B" emergency planning.

One of the answers has got to be that you have a variety of mechanisms for voting. So you have expanded vote-by-mail for people afraid to vote in public. But what if the mail system collapses? You know, the postal service not being funded, the pandemic spreading throughout the postal system, and mail becoming unreliable — there's all kinds of things that could happen. So we need to have in-person voting, and that needs to be safe, or as safe as possible.

The other thing I'm worried about — and this is a very specific scenario — is that even before coronavirus, Michigan and Pennsylvania, two very key swing states, announced that they were moving to no-excuse absentee balloting — which, I think, is a great thing. People should be able to have their choice of how to vote so long as it can be done securely. And I was already worried that places like Detroit and Philadelphia are going to be overwhelmed with absentee ballots. Now, it's going to be many times magnified, as we saw in Wisconsin.

It's possible that there'll be partial returns released on election night. You can imagine it's the cities that are slowest in the count, as usual. Trump declares victory and says that voter fraud is endemic in absentee ballots — especially from cities like Philadelphia, which he's claimed is full of voter fraud in the past. And then, five days later, Biden is declared the winner. And the election turns on this. You have two competing candidates claiming victory, potentially two competing slates of electors sent to the Electoral College, and just a huge mess. So that's one of my nightmare scenarios. One of the ways we need to deal with that is that the media has a very important role in educating the public about election delays not meaning that something nefarious is going on, but [instead] that a count is being done carefully. Like a fine wine, good election results take time; you have to be patient. And the American people are not going to be patient about the results of November's election.

Stanton: We're less than 200 days out from the general election. In a normal cycle, what is going on at this point in terms of preparing for administering an election — and how is that different with coronavirus?

Hasen: Normally, polling places would be secured. Orders for printing ballots would be put in. Machines need to be procured; it's a little too early to program them. It's a little early to start hiring for poll workers. But all of the activity that takes place before the election would happen, except in those states that are still going to run primaries.

Preparations need to happen right now. If you're expecting five times the number of absentee-ballot applications — like Wisconsin saw — you’re going to need to have a printer set up for that, and you're gonna need to have a procedure set up to mail those ballots out. And if people have to apply for absentee ballots individually, those are all going to have to be processed. Lots needs to happen now that wouldn't ordinarily have to happen quite so early.

All of our models about how many people will vote in person or vote by mail, we've got to throw out the window in the context of the pandemic. And I think the prudent thing to do now is to expect that there's going to be a surge of vote-by-mail in every state, and to prepare for that.

Stanton: Are there any states that you see as a sort of model for how to hold an election during a pandemic?

Hasen: Ohio is an example where they seem to be proactively working to make sure voters have easy access to vote-by-mail if they want it. And although I didn't like the way in which Ohio postponed its [primary] election, I thought it was the right thing. And that gave more time for people to be able to apply to vote by mail and to be able to register to vote.

The other thing we haven't touched on, but which is so important right now, is that normally, as the general election period takes off, there would be heavy voter-registration efforts — a lot of it in-person, [where you] go to the park and get people to fill out registration forms. I think there are 10 states that don't allow online voter registration, that require you to go somewhere in-person to register. And with government offices closed, I think there are going to be a lot of people who are not going to be able to vote in November because they're not going to be registered in time.

One of the hottest issues now in litigation, which was not on the radar until about two months ago, is that in the one-third of states which require an excuse to be able to vote by mail, what counts as a valid excuse? Some states have said that if you're worried about getting the coronavirus and you don't want to be out in public, that's a good enough excuse. Others, like Texas, are fighting that. Their attorney general is threatening criminal prosecution against people who would claim fear of the coronavirus as a reason to want to vote by mail. So that's being litigated now. I actually think litigation is a good thing now, because it's better to have clarity about what the rules are well in advance.

Stanton: Vote-by-mail is pretty familiar to most people, but also seems newly partisan in an odd way. But my understanding is that the origins of absentee voting, or at least where it became widespread, was with the Republican Party in California.

Hasen: I mean, absentee voting goes back to the Civil War as a way of giving soldiers a chance to be able to vote. But you're right that California was one of the places that pioneered vote-by-mail, and California Republicans were much faster in advocating for it than Democrats. Now, putting [the] Wisconsin [primary] aside, which I think was an unusual race because of the pandemic and the Republican legislature's response to it, there's no good evidence that vote-by-mail favors Democrats over Republicans. It is true that Democrats have, in recent years, caught up with Republicans, but in many states, like Florida and California, Republicans have a long history of using vote-by-mail as a way of getting out the vote.

Stanton: But there are concerns about fraud and “ballot harvesting” with absentee votes. On what scale does that happen? How widespread is it?

Hasen: Election fraud in the United States in modern times is very rare. When it does happen, it tends to happen more with absentee ballots than with other forms of voting. There's a very good database of all election prosecutions that researchers could track from 2000 to 2012. And 24 percent of the cases involved absentee-ballot fraud in one form or another — sometimes it had nothing to do with actual voting. But that 24 percent of cases made up only 491 prosecutions nationwide during a period when billions of ballots were cast; the rate of absentee-ballot crime appears quite low as an absolute matter. In fact, the five states that use mostly mail-in balloting for their elections have not seen significant cases of crime. Now, of course, the calculation is different [because of coronavirus]: The benefits of voting by mail are greatly increased because now it's not just the convenience, it's the safety that comes from not having to interact with as many people when you're voting in person.

Stanton: President Trump recently attacked voting by mail, calling it “ripe for fraud.” The ability to believe in the sanctity of an election and the accuracy of its outcome is pretty central to a functioning democracy. Are you concerned at all that the cat is out of the bag a little bit — that distrust is sown about mail-in ballots, and there's not necessarily an easy way to come back from that?

Hasen: I've always been concerned that [Trump] would claim that fraud was the reason he might lose an election. And I still think that might happen, should he lose — which brings up the Election Administrators’ Prayer: "Lord, let this not be close." If you have a real blowout, it's hard to claim that fraud is the result.

How do we ensure that elections are not only conducted fairly, but that people have confidence in them, when recent public opinion polling shows up to 40 percent of the public is not convinced that elections are conducted fairly? I think there's a role to play for elected leaders, social media companies, traditional media companies, lawyers, members of Congress, state and local election officials — there are steps that all can take to try to minimize the chances of a meltdown. And that's really where we have to focus our efforts, especially now in this Covid-19 era.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/28/2020-election-coronavirus-disaster-impact-215559

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm opposed to the idea of sanctuary anything, but, this is simply ludicrous.  

Agreed.  Not sure these issues should be linked at all.

But, I am completely against bailing out any state--blue or red.

Hroth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bailouts for the corporations and the billionaires, but not the states.

Republican values 2020.

Talk to me after you've given your stimulus check back to the government.  You are such a deluded fuck with, again, nothing to contribute to the debate.

Hroth

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

To paraphrase Senator Ron Johnson...

1900234903_3.4.jpg.162dfb2b21bc2b7dd26721ce28bed234.jpg

Just another data point in explaining why Johnson is, not so affectionately, called (mo)Ron

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hrothgar said:

Agreed.  Not sure these issues should be linked at all.

But, I am completely against bailing out any state--blue or red.

Hroth

What about bailing out airlines and cruise companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hrothgar said:

Why bail them out?  Why not just put them back to work?  We have in Michigan as of last week.

Hroth

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant.

 

Well, for your old, weak, and those with COVID sensitive conditions anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hrothgar said:

Talk to me after you've given your stimulus check back to the government.  You are such a deluded fuck with, again, nothing to contribute to the debate.

Hroth

So.... We can't be upset that 80% of the stimulus went to people making over 1 mil if we took our 1200 dollars.

Riiiiiiiiight.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hrothgar said:

Talk to me after you've given your stimulus check back to the government.  You are such a deluded fuck with, again, nothing to contribute to the debate.

Hroth

Talk to us after you’ve given your stimulus cheque back....... Or was yours a lot bigger than the average jo and therefore patriotic duty compels you to keep it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Talk to us after you’ve given your stimulus cheque back....... Or was yours a lot bigger than the average jo and therefore patriotic duty compels you to keep it?

I'm in the envious middle. Too much income to get the $1200, not enough millions in real estate to really see the Caysh.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm in the envious middle. Too much income to get the $1200, not enough millions in real estate to really see the Caysh.

You are lucky that you have been spared the patriotic dilemma...... it looks like @hrothgar is probably in the same boat and really upset because he didn’t get a cheque to give back? Which would explain his unnecessary abuse and insults?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hrothgar said:

Talk to me after you've given your stimulus check back to the government.  You are such a deluded fuck with, again, nothing to contribute to the debate.

Hroth

The gov't has borrowed $6,700 on our backs. They want to give us $1,200.

Where is the rest of it going? Are you happy with that portion? Do think that's a good use of credit?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The gov't has borrowed $6,700 on our backs. They want to give us $1,200.

Where is the rest of it going? Are you happy with that portion? Do think that's a good use of credit?

- DSK

Shhh, he doens't want the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that Florida opened up all the counties except the 3 big Democratic counties..... Miami/Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The gov't has borrowed $6,700 on our backs. They want to give us $1,200.

Where is the rest of it going? Are you happy with that portion? Do think that's a good use of credit?

- DSK

Shhh, he doens't want the truth.

Maybe he's one of those guys making over a mil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money is mostly fictional.

I used to tell my favorite member of the tea party that he should not worry.

The money we are sending to people who want to eat?

We can print it all day.  Have you seen my basement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a debate anyone should be having at this time.

This descends into the "deserving" or "undeserving" game that christian countries  played for so long.

The idea that some of the poor are "deserving" the "Christian Charity" idea from which workhouses sprung.

That the POTUS is making such a proposal is simply disgusting.

When Covid19 takes a hold in African "shitholes" or other countries impoverished by corruption and mismanagement will the the world apply the same principle?

When the USA is overwhelmed  because of corruption and mismanagement, should the world turn it's back on the USA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I'm in the envious middle. Too much income to get the $1200, not enough millions in real estate to really see the Caysh.

Some congress-critter has saved me that troubling decision. As I had the audacity to marry a foreigner neither of us are eligible for the $1200. Special billion dollar carve out for those of us not quite patriotic enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

This is not a debate anyone should be having at this time.

This descends into the "deserving" or "undeserving" game that christian countries  played for so long.

The idea that some of the poor are "deserving" the "Christian Charity" idea from which workhouses sprung.

That the POTUS is making such a proposal is simply disgusting.

When Covid19 takes a hold in African "shitholes" or other countries impoverished by corruption and mismanagement will the the world apply the same principle?

When the USA is overwhelmed  because of corruption and mismanagement, should the world turn it's back on the USA?

I doubt there are "christian countries".

Intelligent people will react in ways that reflect their understanding.

I like to listen to people who have more knowledge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

That the POTUS is making such a proposal is simply disgusting.

Well, you could look at it that way . . but you need to understand, . . 

that is what authoritarians do. 

It is in their nature to use the power of the gummint to reward and punish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, you could look at it that way . . but you need to understand, . . 

that is what authoritarians do. 

It is in their nature to use the power of the gummint to reward and punish. 

I disagree, over the decades the world has any number of authoritarian leaders.

Some tyrants(defined as cruel and oppressive) some not .

Trump is simply immoral. He's a mobster with a mobster mentality. One who misuses their power to solely serve his own unethical agenda. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

This is not a debate anyone should be having at this time.

This descends into the "deserving" or "undeserving" game that christian countries  played for so long.

The idea that some of the poor are "deserving" the "Christian Charity" idea from which workhouses sprung.

That the POTUS is making such a proposal is simply disgusting.

When Covid19 takes a hold in African "shitholes" or other countries impoverished by corruption and mismanagement will the the world apply the same principle?

When the USA is overwhelmed  because of corruption and mismanagement, should the world turn it's back on the USA?

Z_n1pp8mgAUMirfY4EZPVs4lGniA0XuUBFPpbaYb

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Some congress-critter has saved me that troubling decision. As I had the audacity to marry a foreigner neither of us are eligible for the $1200. Special billion dollar carve out for those of us not quite patriotic enough.

Lucky you we have xenophobic fascists running the show now.

Make sure you send Stephen Miller a thank you note for that little bit of racist fuckery.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I know a wealthy young retired U.S. yachtie in New Zealand who pocketed his $1200 welfare check long ago
There was a time it was common for able bodied working age men to turn down welfare due to the embarrassment and ask to earn it,
or at least send their wives back to work first.
Now they brag about it on yachting forums, while millions of poor disenfranchised Americans who need it the most are seeing long delays
in receiving their stimulus welfare checks, or not getting them at all.  Think of the starving single mother minority and her children that could use that support,
rather than it going to pay for unlimited gin, tonic, and internet access. My how the times have changed.  
Even Donald Trump, as big an asshole as he is, gives back his salary to charity.   

Can men send their wives back to work?

Gosh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I know a wealthy young retired U.S. yachtie in New Zealand who pocketed his $1200 welfare check long ago
There was a time it was common for able bodied working age men to turn down welfare due to the embarrassment and ask to earn it,
or at least send their wives back to work first.
Now they brag about it on yachting forums, while millions of poor disenfranchised Americans who need it the most are seeing long delays
in receiving their stimulus welfare checks, or not getting them at all.  Think of the starving single mother minority and her children that could use that support,
rather than it going to pay for unlimited gin, tonic, and internet access. My how the times have changed.  
Even Donald Trump, as big an asshole as he is, gives back his salary to charity.   

Once upon a time, able bodied people were poor, pretty powerless, tugged their forelock at their masters and snuffled the crumbs from the rich mans table and all they had was misplaced pride. Then along came things like Unions that taught them to bite the hand that feeds.

They are still pretty poor, pretty powerless, tug their forelock at their masters and snuffled the crumbs from the rich mans table..but they know better than to give the crumbs back.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I dont believe that . I don't even know who Charlie Kirk is. What does that have to do with a stimulus welfare check for the rich?
And capital 'G' please.   Unless you are an atheist, then g is ok I guess,    

dog is even better 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

...    ...
Even Donald Trump, as big an asshole as he is, gives back his salary to charity.   

 

Yeah, just like he donated... oops, sorry, he didn't... MILLIONS for wounded veterans.

If you believe that Trump is not using the Presidency to steer as much money into his pocket as he can figure out how, you're truly dumb. He does not have a charitable cell in his flabby orange body

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I dont have any regard for DT, do not believe in 99 pct of what he says or does, and will not vote for him. 
If that's important for you to know.
I was only using him as an example to establish and expand an 'Asshole Continuum Scale' as the old one had too small a range. 

 

Yep, recalibrating is good

As for who you vote for, your business. I just didn't want to see a gross mistatement walk

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I dont have any regard for DT, do not believe in 99 pct of what he says or does, and will not vote for him. 
If that's important for you to know.
I was only using him as an example to establish and expand an 'Asshole Continuum Scale' as the old one had too small a range. 

 

Trumps salary is only $400,000 PA

How much have his golfing holidays cost the US taxpayer. 

He's way ahead. so not a terribly good analogy 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I didn't make a misstatement.   He gives back his salary. I'm sure he does other things also.
I am using him as an example on the near end of an Asshole scale.
I was hoping that would be enough for you people.
Can anyone stick to the point around here?

Supposedly, yes. But you yourself said you don't believe anything Trump says.

As for "doing other things too" yes, like charging his Secret Service guards above-rates to stay at his resort while guarding him. That alone pays Trump more than his salary, PER DAY

So, what was your point? Trump being all charitable 'n shit?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I didn't make a misstatement.   He gives back his salary. I'm sure he does other things also.
I am using him as an example on the near end of an Asshole scale.
I was hoping that would be enough for you people.
Can anyone stick to the point around here?

Um, the point of this thread happens to be Trump using standover tactics on Sanctuary cities..but you knew that didn't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Some congress-critter has saved me that troubling decision. As I had the audacity to marry a foreigner neither of us are eligible for the $1200. Special billion dollar carve out for those of us not quite patriotic enough.

Hang in there.  Help may be on the way, although it is far off

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-challenges-govt-denial-stimulus-141905435.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Supposedly, yes. But you yourself said you don't believe anything Trump says.

As for "doing other things too" yes, like charging his Secret Service guards above-rates to stay at his resort while guarding him. That alone pays Trump more than his salary, PER DAY

So, what was your point? Trump being all charitable 'n shit?

- DSK

Aren’t there some laws being broken with that?  Whatever happened to the checks and balances we heard so much about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Once upon a time, able bodied people were poor, pretty powerless, tugged their forelock at their masters and snuffled the crumbs from the rich mans table and all they had was misplaced pride. Then along came things like Unions that taught them to bite the hand that feeds.

They are still pretty poor, pretty powerless, tug their forelock at their masters and snuffled the crumbs from the rich mans table..but they know better than to give the crumbs back.

 

Just a reminder that if we don’t quote the libelous trolls, they do not get any traction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

... As for "doing other things too" yes, like charging his Secret Service guards above-rates to stay at his resort while guarding him. That alone pays Trump more than his salary, PER DAY

So, what was your point? Trump being all charitable 'n shit?

 

Aren’t there some laws being broken with that?  Whatever happened to the checks and balances we heard so much about?

Yes indeedy, laws galore

The court decided they did not want to hear any witnesses, and let the alleged culprit go free.. According to one Senator, he learned his lesson though.....

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

So. Back to the point.  Does anyone have an opinion on rich able bodied  yachties collecting welfare? 

Well, yes, for this rich able-bodied yachtie the stimulus payment to me would be the same as a 4.5% boost to my SS income. Minor. Nor would it change my economic activity as I already buy everything I need....which isn’t much. On the other hand, as a tax credit it is also kinda trivial. In a good year the amount of income tax I pay is 5 to 10 or greater than that stimulus payment. So it is a smallish one-time credit...wow!

My opinion is that the fuckwits in power should have made it much larger, or multiple payments, but make it taxable in some rather strongly progressive way.

Actually, since the government is so ossified, archaic, ill-equipped, etc, etc, to make payments to the people* the stimulus money should have been handed out on street corners. Use purple dyed fingers to prevent abuse.

 Compare banks, bailout payments in milliseconds. Or corporations, a day or two. Socialism is well lubricated for the wealthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

Aren’t there some laws being broken with that?  Whatever happened to the checks and balances we heard so much about?

Trump banks the checks and increases his bank balance..

You don't think Trump interpreted that to mean anything other than that did you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Well, yes, for this rich able-bodied yachtie the stimulus payment to me would be the same as a 4.5% boost to my SS income. Minor. Nor would it change my economic activity as I already buy everything I need....which isn’t much. On the other hand, as a tax credit it is also kinda trivial. In a good year the amount of income tax I pay is 5 to 10 or greater than that stimulus payment. So it is a smallish one-time credit...wow!

My opinion is that the fuckwits in power should have made it much larger, or multiple payments, but make it taxable in some rather strongly progressive way.

Actually, since the government is so ossified, archaic, ill-equipped, etc, etc, to make payments to the people* the stimulus money should have been handed out on street corners. Use purple dyed fingers to prevent abuse.

 Compare banks, bailout payments in milliseconds. Or corporations, a day or two. Socialism is well lubricated for the wealthy.

Well, the weird thing is the GOVERNMENT calculates whether the information from your real, for-actual tax returns and qualifies you for a stimulus payment. Taxpayer preferences have nothing to do with it.

They send you the money, and you have to report it on your taxes then take the credit. If your financial situation indicated you should get a stimulus, they send it to you.

If you don't accept the stimulus (which is kind of hard to do since they direct deposit it into your account) you will still be taxed on the $1,200 on your next return.

The government's rules, not any personal preference, indicate who gets the stimulus and who doesn't. If you qualify for the stimulus under the rules, you will be liable it whether or not you "accept" the money or tear up your check.

If you get a payment, you should have gotten one by the merits of your status as a tax payer, period.

And since the government is borrowing something like $6,000 in my name to pay me $1,200 I didn't ask for and will be taxed on even if I don't keep it, I'm not sure what the whiny bitches are on about. Trying to justify their own hypocrisy keeping the money, I suppose.

 

What I am curious about is if hypocritical, lying fucks from the WLIS who claim to be conservative will destroy their checks un-cashed or return their money even if they didn't have a problem holding onto jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

And since the government is borrowing something like $6,000 in my name to pay me $1,200 I didn't ask for and will be taxed on even if I don't keep it, I'm not sure what the whiny bitches are on about.

Pardon my ignorance...or dementia...or some alcohol induced issue, but did the government actually borrow that $6,000? I thought it was simply printed, or rather just a bookkeeping entry to the bank cashing the check? Or maybe it is all the same thing?

I vaguely recall knowing the answer many years ago...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Some congress-critter has saved me that troubling decision. As I had the audacity to marry a foreigner neither of us are eligible for the $1200. Special billion dollar carve out for those of us not quite patriotic enough.

You sure?  If your spouse has a social security number, you guys get it.  It's only if you guys file joint, and are are still using an ITIN for your spouse, that you don't. 

In practice, that clause is only making a difference to a very small subset of us foreigner-marrying citizen types.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, El Boracho said:
59 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

And since the government is borrowing something like $6,000 in my name to pay me $1,200 I didn't ask for and will be taxed on even if I don't keep it, I'm not sure what the whiny bitches are on about.

Pardon my ignorance...or dementia...or some alcohol induced issue, but did the government actually borrow that $6,000? I thought it was simply printed, or rather just a bookkeeping entry to the bank cashing the check? Or maybe it is all the same thing?

I vaguely recall knowing the answer many years ago...

I do not think we have determined the "How you gonna pay for that" issue yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, frenchie said:

 

You sure?  If your spouse has a social security number, you guys get it.  It's only if you guys file joint, and are are still using an ITIN for your spouse, that you don't. 

In practice, that clause is only making a difference to a very small subset of us foreigner-marrying citizen types.

Yup. Sure. Estimated 1.2 million of us. $1.5 Billion. Rude. Some congressional hater referred to people like my wife as ‘undocumented aliens’. Perhaps to throw some justification, shade and red meat. She is not undocumented. When visiting here she is 100% legal. She has no intention of immigrating to the USA. Yet the same ridiculous tax code has her paying US tax with an ITIN. Gotta love it! Baked in hate and racism.

Neither of us get it. Don’t really care. Maybe I’ll make a killing on Trump’s oil bailout.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Trump banks the checks and increases his bank balance..

You don't think Trump interpreted that to mean anything other than that did you?

I’m not talking about Trumps interpretations on any subject, I’m questioning the system that allows him to run amok and do as he feels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mad said:

I’m not talking about Trumps interpretations on any subject, I’m questioning the system that allows him to run amok and do as he feels. 

He can't do whatever he feels. Over-simplified but practically speaking, he do whatever he feels as long as the Senate goes along with it. Just so happens the Senate is dominated by people who are either in league with him or afraid to cross him. 

 Why are they afraid? The problem of primary elections. Only a very small portion of the public bother to vote in those, and most of those are the outraged. It's a simple matter for a populist like Trump (with the assistance of FOX Neuz) to end the career of any Senator in his party. In normal times the outraged minorities are choosing all the candidates. I would fix that with mandatory or semi-mandatory voting like the Aussies have. Force normal people to participate. 

 We don't have a parliamentary system wherein calling a no-confidence vote is an easy matter. What we have is a system which effectively allows politicians 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on the position) to do whatever they want until their terms are up. Impeachment is not practically possible 99.9% if the time. 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...