Jump to content

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president


Recommended Posts

This is a bit older: Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan could take months to decide whether to challenge Trump in a primary

 

Quote

Hogan may not make up his mind on running for president until the fall, The Washington Post reported Monday. He wants to see whether GOP voters push for an alternative and what special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation reveals about the president.

 

The former FBI director is wrapping up his probe into Moscow's efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin. Mueller is also looking into whether Trump obstructed justice.

 

Quote

Hogan, 62, won a second term leading the blue state in November by about a 12-point margin. He carried Maryland even as Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin won re-election by more than 30 percentage points.

 

In the Post interview, Hogan billed himself as a traditional Republican with a more centrist bent. In an interview with CNBC last month, he said he disagreed with the national emergency Trump declared to divert federal money toward building a border wall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The poll provides Democrats with some other data to be optimistic about: Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said that they would not support President Trump in the 2020 election regardless of which Democrat wins the primary.

 

The fuck?  Only 53%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

The poll provides Democrats with some other data to be optimistic about: Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said that they would not support President Trump in the 2020 election regardless of which Democrat wins the primary.

 

The fuck?  Only 53%?

 

O' sweet summer child . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

The poll provides Democrats with some other data to be optimistic about: Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said that they would not support President Trump in the 2020 election regardless of which Democrat wins the primary.

 

The fuck?  Only 53%?

 

21 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

O' sweet summer child . . . 

But 53 percent of American voters say they definitely will not vote for Trump in the 2020 general election if he is the Republican candidate.

 

Not just Democrats. Of all Americans.

 

 

Also:

Quote

67 - 23 percent that bipartisanship is an important factor;
71 - 24 percent that standing up to Republicans is important

I feel like these are mutually exclusive. And anyone who wants to be bipartisan with these fucking Republican clowns is an absolute moron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, he's also correct. And high income-tax rates aren't the best way to get money from them anyway. You can definitely raise those rates (and should), but you also need to massively increase capital gains rates, rates on dividends, and introduce a wealth tax. The wealthy are wealthy because of the money they already have, and that needs to be taxed and put back into the economy/society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

No he isn’t.  Having less money will impact the ability of the rich to influence politics.

 

I mean that he is correct in that the ultra-rich will always have more than enough money to influence politics, unless you take away 99.9% of their existing wealth. But you are correct that reducing wealth overall will reduce the influence of many less-rich rich people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

No he isn’t.  Having less money will impact the ability of the rich to influence politics.

They already have more than enough to live the life style they want. They would need to have significantly less money, to the point you have to have strict income and asset caps to actually hamper their ability to spend on politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen the argument that we need more wealth taxes to reduce the outsized effect the wealthy have in politics, and I don't think it really follows. If there are wealthy people, they will be able to influence politics more than non-wealthy people. There are lots of ways to reduce that, like having publicly funded elections, reducing tax deductions for certain gifts, elinimanting super-pacs, changing lobbying rules, etc. but none of those rely on the premise that we're going to have fewer rich people or rich people that are slightly less rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThreePi said:

His argument is very much in the "well, it won't fix the problem 100%, so no point in doing it!"

It is actually that it does nothing to fix the particular issue, so there is no point in doing it for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher wealth/income taxes to help reduce income/wealth inequality have the added side effect that it reduce the number of the “rich, but not insanely rich” people (i.e. those who are professional athlete level rich, a larger group than the Jeff bezos level rich of the world) from being able to easily spread their influence. 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...