May I recomend that you do some background reading? You don’t seem to have the knowledge necessary to really participate in this discussion.
Joe the Billionaire uses his influence and wealth to push for a teeny-tiny benefit for his industry. Repeat 50,000 times. Many small changes can add up to a big change.
That’s avoidance. C’mon, this shouldn’t be hard. Why have we now figured out that about 400 people are responsible for what’s wrong with this country?
Those are mainly millionaires, actually, and they have the full support of unions, if applicable, for such favors. As a matter of fact, show me any unionized industry and I’ll show you a huge amount of subsidies, carveouts, special favors, and protections from competition.
The reality of political power in this country is far more complicated than Sanders and his ilk like to make out.
This is one case where Sanders has chosen to go full on cynic. Americans like millionaires. Most of us would like to be one and think we can be, and many more of us know someone that rich and we tend to think they are okay folks. Billionaires, though, that’s so far in the stratosphere that we can’t relate. And a demagogue with skill finds the boogeyman we can’t relate to. But the reality is that those 400 richest Americans aren’t doing anything particularly offensive and really don’t even care that much about special favors from the government. Many of them are giving away far more of their money than the government takes in taxes, and making better use of it.
That’s a remarkably inept takeaway from what I said. Please don’t pretend I said something stupid, so you can more easily argue against it.
I understand that you have a tough job, I certainly wouldn’t want to argue for the degenerate nonsense that is RW policy.
Again, this is its own topic with a fairly deep history and a lot of information. If you would like to understand it, why not start a GQ thread? I don’t know that remedial civics on an only semi on-topic issue is really relevant to a thread about people lying about trump.
I’m pretty interested actually in why Sanders is projecting. Supposedly, criticizing a group in rather harsh terms and proposing legislation adverse to that group is not evidence of hate. Yet Sanders thinks it is. Which makes him a hater. He just thinks he hates the people who deserve it.
Again, adaher, if you really do not understand the difference between “these people are all terrorists, we need to do something about them” (where “do something” has heavy fascist undertones) and “these people are all contributing to economic injustice, we need to do something about it” (where “do something” is clearly stated as “a more progressive tax system”), then I can’t help you.
Okay, so it’s hate if you’re going to “do something about those people”, but not hate if you just capitalize on dislike of certain people to implement a progressive tax system.
I’d also note that Trump didn’t say all Muslims were terrorists, only that Muslim immigration should be halted until “they figure out what is going on”, they presumably being the government. Since there is no right of foreigners to come to this country, no one’s rights are violated by a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration, and even a Democratic Senate candidate in California has said that between 5 and 20 percent of Muslims support a caliphate and violence to achieve it. 5% alone is a big enough number to justify Trump’s policy suggestion on rational grounds having nothing to do with emotions of any sort, much less hate.
Cutouts for working, middle-class individuals are better for the country than cutouts that make the already very-rich, even richer. Not that I accept your self-serving version of reality.
The very-wealthy are getting more wealthy, and the middle class are stagnating. Blaming unions is nonsense.
No, the economy is more complicated that the cretins of the GOP make out. Cutting taxes on the very wealthy doesn’t make everyone richer. It makes the very wealthy richer.
For the vast majority that is a childish pipe-dream. Every trailer-park hero with a mullet and a GOP button thinks he’s gonna be a millionaire. The vast majority are wrong. Joe the Plumber magically thought he’d own the business he worked for and make 250k of profit a year as a plumber. Yeah, maybe if you’re super-duper lucky. But right now, you’re very likely to die in the same income strata as you were born, or less. It’s magical thinking, the same thing that waters the lawns in Vegas.
Magic is for children.
Sure. And raising their taxes slightly isn’t a hardship upon them.
Everyone is trying to maximize their wealth. If the system we have in place takes economic growth and channels it all to a very small segment of the populace, that indicates a flaw in the system.
Also, the 400 number is asinine. Stop using that, will you?
It’s not capitalizing on dislike to say that only a small segment are getting the dividends of the economy. Our system, should be designed, to as equitably as possible channel economic gains to as many people as possible.
No, it’s about hate. He’s a seething cunt, and you’re working overtime to make excuses for him.
Also, Trump wasn’t calling for an immigration ban. He was calling for a ban of Muslims entering the country. Like guys on vacation, or people on business.
Distortion of our democratic process by any special interest at the expense of everyone else is bad. I dare say that a small distortion by a millionaire does far less harm than unions gouging the buying public for thousands of dollars.
That’s not really 100% accurate:
Immigration of a lot of poor people distorts those figures. Whites, blacks, and Asians have actually seen robust growth. Latinos, not so much.
You won’t get any argument from me about the stupidity of supply side economic theory.
Enough do get to those heights to make it pretty realistic. Sure, most don’t make it, but most of us know someone who did. And we tend to like that person or people.
This is where Sanders’ magical thinking comes in. You can’t pay for everything Democrats want with only higher taxes on the rich, much less what Sanders wants. So we’re talking the kinds of taxes that will actually make mere millionaires hurt. Billionaires of course won’t care either way.
There are two main causes of that trend: automation and falling union membership. Neither have anything to do with chicanery by billionaires. Mark Zuckerburg is a billionaire because the company he founded doesn’t need to hire anyone. Facebook has 12,000 employees. That means more money for Zuckerburg.
True: there are almost 1000.
On Muslims, Trump just wants a temporary ban, something we’ve already done for individual countries before.
On Mexicans, he equated illegal immigrants with rapists and drug dealers. Problem is, no one has actually debunked that one, instead trying to use numbers for all immigrants as a whole in a blatantly dishonest attempt at debunking. But I guess dishonesty is always justified when combatting hate, even though it’s actually pretty counterproductive.
http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/criminalization-immigration-united-states
The data is murky. But Trump never even tried to substantiate his statements, and there is good reason to believe that illegal immigrants are, at least, not more likely to commit violent crime or drug offenses than legal immigrants or native citizens. “Nobody has debunked that”? Come on, man. That’s a phenomenally weak excuse. Not only have they, but there’s no reason to take Trump’s claims seriously in the first place!
Well, one fact check showed that 17.2% of federal drug crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, which is a pretty high number given their proportion of the populace.
However, sex crimes were only 3.8%. So he might have been right about the drug dealers, but not the rapists.
The key word here is federal, and your own cite says so. Federal drug crime is only about 10% of total drug crime. It’s not particularly representative, and there are serious problems with acting as though they were the same thing.
It’s reasonable to describe calling all members of a group “rapists” as bigotry.
Even if this was true (and unless you’re referring to pre-1960s Democrats, I’m far from confident that it is), yes, doing bad things less is morally superior to doing bad things more.
However, don’t most dealers fall under federal jurisdiction, while users tend to fall under state and local?
Are these dancing goalposts you keep gifting us with supposed to be the new Big Mouth Billy Bass?
For the OP and adaher:
There are two issues in play here. Trump is a Republican politician, which means on the SDMB his statements are subject to exacting scrutiny and hypertechnical parsing, and if there are four fair ways of interpreting his comments, the prevailing interpretation will be the fifth, slightly worse for Trump, way.
This is justified in the minds of most SDMB members, I imagine, when applied to most Republican politicians, because ultimately they are just bad for the country and therefore deserve no benefit of the doubt.
In the case of Trump, though, a second factor emerges, one that is in my view undeniable: he’s actually a liar and a bigot and inept. In other words, while I am perfectly capable of parsing Trump’s statements accurately, and don’t need to resort to the subtext and implications in reporting them, I am convinced that Trump is a nightmare, a boil on the body politic, and a disaster for the GOP.