2024

[twocoach]

Polls have Harris ahead in WI, PA, MI and NV but behind in AZ, GA and NC.
If that holds and nothing else swings, it will be close, but that would give the Democrats the votes they need.

NV is very close but so is NC.

Harris is dropping by the day. Every time she opens her mouth, voters switch. I’m going to thoroughly enjoy the meltdown around here on the evening of the 5th and immediately after.

In what, all the GOP funded polls that are being generated every day?

[JKLivin]

Polls have Harris ahead in WI, PA, MI and NV but behind in AZ, GA and NC.
If that holds and nothing else swings, it will be close, but that would give the Democrats the votes they need.

NV is very close but so is NC.

Harris is dropping by the day. Every time she opens her mouth, voters switch. I’m going to thoroughly enjoy the meltdown around here on the evening of the 5th and immediately after.

In what, all the GOP funded polls that are being generated every day?

The accurate, unbiased polls.

[twocoach]

Harris is dropping by the day. Every time she opens her mouth, voters switch. I’m going to thoroughly enjoy the meltdown around here on the evening of the 5th and immediately after.

In what, all the GOP funded polls that are being generated every day?

The accurate, unbiased polls.

OK, rube.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I'm going to tell you kids what makes me laugh - and isn't funny at all.
Most of you hate (or at least very much dislike) Trump. You rip on him on here. You say our country is fucked if he gets elected.
Meanwhile, what if anything are you doing to help get Giggles elected - and/or Trump not elected? Other than your circle jerk on here.
Giggles loses and Trump wins, maybe one or two of you will say - Gee, Gutter may have had a decent point. Nah, who am I kidding?



I'll add that so many people in this country are also ignoring the fact that the House and Senate races are huge. My guess is if there is a Senate election in their own state, over 20% of the people voting on November 5th can't name the people running for Senator - and 70%+ can't name the candidates in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, etc.

Projecting much?
Listen, this is a basketball message board. This is not a PAC strategy room.
You don't know how many meetings or dollars or doors etc. that the rest of us are expending.
If your post was supposed to be a rousing call to action, you did not give or link to a single actionable item to make the first step as simple as possible for people.
btw, if they are on social media, someone has put a swing-state senator's ad in front of them because it would help the party up and down the ballot.

Respectfully......
Actually, THIS is a Politics Bored (sp) but you're right, it is not a PAC strategy room.
Yes, in some ways I am absolutely projecting. In other ways, I have done, am doing, and will probably continue to do, more than most people in regards to helping candidates get elected (and other candidates to NOT get elected).
You are 100% correct that I don't know what ALL the rest of the people on here are expending but I am highly confident most people on here aren't doing jack shit other than posting their thoughts on this bored (sp).
My post was (and still is) for people to interpret however they choose, and to do whatever they choose to do - or not do.
Back to projecting - I am someone who has many regrets for not doing things in my life that I feel I had the power to at least help change. Both personally and politically. I'll never forget the times I helped work for Obama and Emanuel (as well as people running for Aldermen and Alderwomen, and the Governor, and Representatives, and Senators) and being in their campaign headquarters and saying to myself - if I really give a damn I could and should be offering to do more than I am doing. You got me today. A sincere thank you!
You are correct for calling me out for not giving a "link to a single actionable item to make the first step as simple as possible for people".
My thought was people are resourceful if something is important enough to them. Maybe I am giving people too much credit? I refuse to tell people who they should and shouldn't vote for. I'm not going to try and influence anyone other than my saying - if you really despise and fear someone - why wouldn't you make an effort to help their opponent/s get elected?
As an "Independent" living in Illinois, and as someone who has posted on here that I am more concerned with who my Mayor and Governor are, my focus isn't on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Being that we don't have a Mayoral or Gubernatorial election in Illinois in November, I am somewhat (but not enough) focused and concerned with the Presidential election in other states and with the House and Senate races.

On a related side note. Speaking of PACS, If randy truly believes in a "deep state", I have a question for him.
Who is really pulling the strings of that "deep state"? I'm asking because I had a conversation with a very sharp person today that told me there is a "faction" behind Trump who feel he is easier to manipulate than Harris is. I have no doubt he is. In some/many regards. The question I have is if randy would consider this "faction" is a facet of the "deep state".

[jfish26]

I suspect things like this are the real purpose of Harris going on Fox tomorrow.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Polls have Harris ahead in WI, PA, MI and NV but behind in AZ, GA and NC.
If that holds and nothing else swings, it will be close, but that would give the Democrats the votes they need.

NV is very close but so is NC.

Harris is dropping by the day.

This is actually not true.
Her numbers have increased not decreased.

I am wondering which specific polls you are referring to.
I have a feeling I can find reputable polls that dispute some if not all of your claims.
As far as your claim that her "numbers" have increased and not decreased, I'm extremely confident that's not true in regards to some/many/most of the "swing states".

[randylahey]

Regardless who wins, I hope the overall disgruntled state of citizens in general pushes politicians to actually start working for us again

[twocoach]

Regardless who wins, I hope the overall disgruntled state of citizens in general pushes politicians to actually start working for us again

We'll need to vote all of the MAGA morons out of Congress to start that process.

[randylahey]

Regardless who wins, I hope the overall disgruntled state of citizens in general pushes politicians to actually start working for us again

We'll need to vote all of the MAGA morons out of Congress to start that process.

Well fucking dipshits like you aren't helping. That can't even agree on something as simple as that

[JKLivin]

In what, all the GOP funded polls that are being generated every day?

The accurate, unbiased polls.

OK, rube.

No worries, dupe.

[Overlander]

The accurate, unbiased polls.

OK, rube.

No worries, dupe.

Dupe-Tricked
Rube-Willfully Ignorant

[JKLivin]

OK, rube.

No worries, dupe.

Dupe-Tricked
Rube-Willfully Ignorant

So, you’re both, then? More proof that you’re the best at everything. Only the best, actually.

[Overlander]

At least you don’t react to

Every

Single

Post

[japhy]

Former President Donald Trump's proposed tax plan has stirred up fresh controversy. A new analysis shows that it could provide substantial tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest while burdening the rest with tax increases by 2026.

According to a recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) report, the top 1% of earners could enjoy an average tax cut of over $36,300.

Fuck Yeah! Whatever you do Brer Fox News, don't throw me into that tax cut briar patch! To be clear, that is additive to my previous tax cuts.

In comparison, the next 4% would see cuts averaging $7,200. Meanwhile, 95% of Americans could face tax hikes ranging from $600 to $1,800, depending on their income bracket.

Trump, who often touts his tax plan as a boon for everyday Americans, would instead disproportionately benefit the wealthiest, the ITEP analysis suggests. Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director and lead researcher, put it bluntly in an interview with Salon: “It does seem like there’s a whole bunch of complicated proposals here to just make the rich a little bit richer and then make everyone else worse off.”

Is this a problem for anyone? Rubes?

I can live with it.

The middle 20% of American households, earning between $55,100 and $94,100, would be hit with an average tax increase of $1,530 – about 2.1% of their income, per the ITEP findings. The poorest 20% of households, those earning under $28,600, would face an average tax hike of $800, accounting for 4.8% of their income. Essentially, as family income decreases, the burden of these tax hikes increases.

Other experts, like Erica York, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, have offered a more nuanced take. She noted that Trump's proposals often combine regressive taxes, like tariffs, with more progressively distributed income tax cuts.

“How each income group fares will depend on which combinations of tax and tariff ideas Trump ultimately pursues,” York told Salon in an email. She added that higher tariffs could "outweigh the benefits of the reduced taxes for lower and middle-income groups."

Key to Trump’s tax strategy is his plan to extend most of the provisions from his 2017 tax law, which expires at the end of 2025. His new proposals include reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20% or even 15% for certain U.S.-made products and eliminating overtime pay and tips taxes.

God Damn the smell of dividends is strong on this idea. Are you rubes following this? It's math, so concentrate.

Additionally, Trump has suggested a sweeping 20% tariff on all imported goods and a steeper 60% tariff on goods from China.

Proponents argue that Trump's plan would boost U.S. jobs and support working-class families. “President Donald Trump passed the largest tax CUTS for working families in history,” his campaign said in a statement to Salon. However, critics warn that the tariffs would function as a federal consumption tax, disproportionately affecting low-income and middle-class families.

You can trust trumpty plumpty rubes, he always tells you the truth. Seriously this time YOU will get the tax cuts.

Ah ha ha ha ha

Anyway, thank you for your debt service rubes.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Probably doesn't belong on this thread but somewhat in response to the past post on this thread....
Someone please help me. Tax wise, is it true that it is financially better for a person to have a $95,750 a year salary than a $100,600 a year salary?

Does NOT really remind me of -
A person goes to buy an electric vehicle and gets a "tax credit" of $7500. Who is to say the IRS and car dealerships aren't in cahoots in which the car dealerships are purposely charging a person $10,000 more for the car than they should/need to - and could/would still make a substantial profit? In other words +$2500 for the car dealership/s when Joey Schmuckface walks out actually thinking to himself - gee, it's awesome I got a $7500 "refund" for buying a plug in car. No Joey Schmuckface, in reality you actually paid an extra $2500 to buy a plug in car. Good for you Mr. I am green and doing my part to keep world climate change in check.
Now tell me when the IRS will end up in cahoots with electric companies and instead of giving people breaks for having electric cars - have the electric companies charge people more for using electricity to charge their electric cars.

[jfish26]

You will note that even our resident Trumpers will not really stand behind tariffs with any enthusiasm. Oh sure, you’ll get the right talking points around America First!!! and down with the globe!!! or somesuch. You’ll get the Biden does it!!! treatment.

But what you will not get is any sort of specifically-reasoned support.

And that is because there is nothing supportable here.

Let’s even assume, graciously, that there is a major class of consumer goods out there that is or can easily be 100% US-sourced and manufactured, tip to tail or bow to stern. As it were. Point is, let’s ignore, graciously, that tariffs on materials and components will directly raise prices on US-made goods incorporating foreign-sourced materials and components.

Let’s even get REALLY generous and assume that, in this given class of consumer goods, there are TWO competing producers of 100% US-sourced and manufactured goods.

Tell me what EagleCo and Freedom LLC do when tariffs on US importers of foreign goods* pass those tariffs through to US consumers, causing the prices of foreign goods to go up by 20%. It’s not difficult: EagleCo and Freedom LLC will raise their OWN prices by 19.5% and 19% respectively. Maybe there is, given competition, a race to 17% or something. But there will come a point where even competitors stop competing with each other on price, because they’ve crowded out the rest of the market.

Point is: even when setting up the case for tariffs with ALL of these variables stacked in the case’s favor, the case sucks. People will pay more for everything. Only the rich - the producers of these (hypothetical) purely-American goods - will benefit.

It’s trickle-down economics, but worse and in racist clothes.

Oh, and.

* Of course this means that Americans are even the direct payors of tariffs to begin with! The tariffs only theoretically hurt the foreign producers if the importers stop buying the foreign goods, or squeeze the foreign producers on price. But EVEN IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL BEST CASE SCENARIO, you’ve driven competition out of the market, which does what, children?

It raises prices!!!

[twocoach]

Trump was eviscerated by the host at a sit down at the Chicago Economic Club yesterday. He clearly has no real economic plan at all that stands any chance of making it through Congress.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Trump was eviscerated by the host at a sit down at the Chicago Economic Club yesterday. He clearly has no real economic plan at all that stands any chance of making it through Congress.

It's funny. Well, no, it's not funny. That's your (and my) take (that he was "eviscerated" and "clearly has no real economic plan") and then you have these takes and probably 100 more similar ones.....

[twocoach]

Trump was eviscerated by the host at a sit down at the Chicago Economic Club yesterday. He clearly has no real economic plan at all that stands any chance of making it through Congress.

It's funny. Well, no, it's not funny. That's your (and my) take (that he was "eviscerated" and "clearly has no real economic plan") and then you have these takes and probably 100 more similar ones.....

I knew when I saw a tweet by Stephen Miller that he had just done the greatest interview of any President of all time that it had to have been bad. The pundits you shared probably all claimed that he did amazing in winning the debate against Harris as well. They are nothing if not consistent.

I watched a bit of it and you could hear people in the crowd openly laughing at some of his answers.

[japhy]

You will note that even our resident Trumpers will not really stand behind tariffs with any enthusiasm. Oh sure, you’ll get the right talking points around America First!!! and down with the globe!!! or somesuch. You’ll get the Biden does it!!! treatment.

But what you will not get is any sort of specifically-reasoned support.

And that is because there is nothing supportable here.

Let’s even assume, graciously, that there is a major class of consumer goods out there that is or can easily be 100% US-sourced and manufactured, tip to tail or bow to stern. As it were. Point is, let’s ignore, graciously, that tariffs on materials and components will directly raise prices on US-made goods incorporating foreign-sourced materials and components.

Let’s even get REALLY generous and assume that, in this given class of consumer goods, there are TWO competing producers of 100% US-sourced and manufactured goods.

Tell me what EagleCo and Freedom LLC do when tariffs on US importers of foreign goods* pass those tariffs through to US consumers, causing the prices of foreign goods to go up by 20%. It’s not difficult: EagleCo and Freedom LLC will raise their OWN prices by 19.5% and 19% respectively. Maybe there is, given competition, a race to 17% or something. But there will come a point where even competitors stop competing with each other on price, because they’ve crowded out the rest of the market.

Point is: even when setting up the case for tariffs with ALL of these variables stacked in the case’s favor, the case sucks. People will pay more for everything. Only the rich - the producers of these (hypothetical) purely-American goods - will benefit.

It’s trickle-down economics, but worse and in racist clothes.

Oh, and.

* Of course this means that Americans are even the direct payors of tariffs to begin with! The tariffs only theoretically hurt the foreign producers if the importers stop buying the foreign goods, or squeeze the foreign producers on price. But EVEN IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL BEST CASE SCENARIO, you’ve driven competition out of the market, which does what, children?

It raises prices!!!

And as we have both pointed out before, the tariffs are the tip of the iceberg. The tax policy is additive on that. And the tariffs don't hit equally. If you live paycheck to paycheck, the tariffs hit you at a higher percentage of your income. If more than half your income is disposable, and you are investing in the companies increasing their profits due to tariffs, well it is just more money transfer from the rubes to the 1%.

And they voted and cheered for it.

I member Mitt Romney, the negative pitch was he was a private equity capitalist, an elitist, one of the group of people who brought financial misery to the masses. But he is religious and seems to live by those principals, he is not a man of the rubes. He is a decent guy. He lost his bid for the White House.

Trumpty plumpty, we all know what he is and what he has done. But he brings more to the Great Wall of Rubedom than Mitt did. He brings straight up in yer face racism, misogyny, threats of violence and xenophobia. And they lowered the drawbridge at the Great Wall and welcome him into the Kingdom of the Rubes ass their lord and savior.

When they tell you their #1 concerns are inflation and the economy, and you show them how bad trumpty plumpty will be for both of those things, unequivocally, and they tell you, "nuh huh". Their love for trumpty and their suspension of disbelief its not based upon financial analysis or math of any kind. They love him for the racism, misogyny, threats of violence and xenophobia. They are hoping that the imposition of their religious beliefs, by the most vulgar unchristian man to ever hold the office of president, will be imposed upon the heathens and bring misery down upon their unclean souls.

RETRIBUTION! VINDICATION!

All the while forgetting that anything beyond making the rich, and therefore himself, richer is just an afterthought to the plumpty one.

His election would not be as satisfying as they think. He would start out with his vengeance tour, which will likely die on the reality of our justice system. But this will be mildly rewarding for the rubes. Then the economic reality will set in and take most of the fun out of it. Keep in mind, they won't abandon him for that; they will just need more scapegoats for their ire and he will supply that. And the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99% will grow exponentially in four more years.

Again and again and again, thank you for your debt service rubes.