How's it really going Americans?

[Ironhold]

I had to go to work last night, so I missed a supposed CNN interview that Harris did... in which she, from what I'm seeing, either came off as a darling or came off as utterly unprepared. 

I still need to get around to watching it.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

CNN interview that Harris did...

I just read the transcript.  Here are my hasty notes:

Stuff she committed to doing: 
Child tax credit $6k in 1st year
$25k tax credit for 1st time house buyers

Q: Energy - you were going to ban fracking, now you're for it?   A: I flipped in 2020.  It's old news.  I increased leases for fracking.  

Q: Immigration - Record #s of illegal crossings.  WTH?    A: I did good root causes work, and that helped businesses and immigrants reduced.  We had a bill and Trump killed it.  It would have put 1500 more agents on the border.   I'll do that bill again.

Q: In 2019 you said the border should be decriminalized.  Still for it?  A: Laws need to be followed and enforced and there should be consequences.  I'm against TCOs.

She'll put a republican in her cabinet.  "I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion."

Q: Israel?   A: Unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and ability to defend itself.  Remember O7.  Remember hostages still there.  Americans too.  Ceasefire.  "Get a deal done".  2 state solution.

Q: Walz, you said you carried weapons in war.  A: "my wife the English teacher told me my grammar’s not always correct."

Q: How did Biden go?  A: He called me during family dinner, and it was apparent he was going to support me.

 

 

That was pretty much it.   

Positives: I'm happy to see the strong words on supporting Israel.  It's nice to hear "diversity of opinion".   It's nice to have a Dem pres candidate interview and not spend any time looking past the neurodegeneration and guessing at what he meant to say. 

Negatives: Meh.  Standard friendly interview with a standard friendly politician and a standard friendly interviewer.   She only committed to doing 2 things.  Zero specifics on how she's going to lower the costs of things.  Devil's always in those details.   IMO, Trump simply has better answers. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I just read the transcript.  Here are my hasty notes:

Lies or truth, meh...

She said some things I like and some that I don't.  But for all of them, I question her sincerity.  If she's for them, what is keeping her from implementing them now?  Who's going to stop her?  Biden?  Not.

Is she willing to stand up and say,"I spoke with the President about implementing these ideas.  He agreed with some and disagreed with others.  We are going to proceed on the items where we believe will help the country."

Unless that happens, we all know it is just campaign blather that she has no idea whether she'll ever think of it again.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

I bolded some stuff for emphasis.

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Stuff she committed to doing: 
Child tax credit $6k in 1st year
$25k tax credit for 1st time house buyers

Q: Energy - you were going to ban fracking, now you're for it?   A: I flipped in 2020.  It's old news.  I increased leases for fracking.  

Q: Immigration - Record #s of illegal crossings.  WTH?    A: I did good root causes work, and that helped businesses and immigrants reduced.  We had a bill and Trump killed it.  It would have put 1500 more agents on the border.   I'll do that bill again.

Q: In 2019 you said the border should be decriminalized.  Still for it?  A: Laws need to be followed and enforced and there should be consequences.  I'm against TCOs.

She'll put a republican in her cabinet.  "I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion."

Q: Israel?   A: Unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and ability to defend itself.  Remember O7.  Remember hostages still there.  Americans too.  Ceasefire.  "Get a deal done".  2 state solution.

Q: Walz, you said you carried weapons in war.  A: "my wife the English teacher told me my grammar’s not always correct."

Q: How did Biden go?  A: He called me during family dinner, and it was apparent he was going to support me.

I didn't see the interview, but the general reaction from the left was disappointment that the questions focused so much on past attacks made by Trump and making her defend things that have already been repeatedly addressed about her past rather than focusing on her plans for the future. Based on your summary, that sounds about right. There wasn't much policy revealed because Kamala had to explain, yet again, that she and Biden sent a strong plan to Congress and Trump killed it.

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Positives: I'm happy to see the strong words on supporting Israel.  

Did you watch her DNC acceptance speech? Her support for Israel has never been in question from where I sit, and right now that's one of the biggest thorns in her side.

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Zero specifics on how she's going to lower the costs of things.  Devil's always in those details.   

Tax the rich. That's always the plan, always has been. The problem, as always, is getting the rich donor elite on board and convincing Joe the Plumber that no, Elon Musk's wealth isn't going to trickle down to him.

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If she's for them, what is keeping her from implementing them now?  

Two things:

1) Optics. Running the country behind Joe's back may be a wet dream for true believers, but might not play well with swing voters.

2) The same thing that compelled Trump to stop a border bill that the Border Patrol itself signed off on: electability. To attempt a sports metaphor: you don't pull out your best plays in the preseason. You talk up the strength of your team and hope those season tickets keep selling. It sucks, but every politician does it whenever they think they can get away with it. Kamala and Biden acted on the border (or tried) because they knew that was going to be a hot topic this election season and it was their biggest policy weakness. It was a gamble because it annoyed their base, but Trump gifted them some ironclad campaign material when he soured the GOP on the bill. Kamala needs to hammer Trump on it every chance she gets. And FWIW, I do believe she'll bring the bill back if elected, because it's never too early to start thinking about 2028.

Edited August 31, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:19 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Tax the rich. That's always the plan, always has been. The problem, as always, is getting the rich donor elite on board and convincing Joe the Plumber that no, Elon Musk's wealth isn't going to trickle down to him

The IRS takes checks and money orders. Rich liberals love to talk about their compassion and how they want to pay more taxes. But they never do. They use complicated tax shelters to pay as little as possible.  

[NeuroTypical]

13 hours ago, LDSGator said:

They use complicated tax shelters to pay as little as possible.

A lot of tax avoidance isn't that complicated.  It might be extra work, but it's not complicated.

Paying as little tax as legally possible is a worthy endeavor, and I recommend everyone spend the energy to reduce their tax burden to the absolute minimum.  Folks can even turn it negative and the govt will pay you taxes, but I'm not a fan of welfare in the form of refundable credits.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Paying as little tax as legally possible is a worthy endeavo

Couldn’t agree more. Like I mentioned above, if you want to pay a higher rate no one is stopping you. 

[JohnsonJones]

Well, the Trump Tax "cuts" weren't cuts for me.  They actually made my taxes worse  (I think I complained about something to that effect years ago when they were being created as well). 

I see that supposedly they lessened the taxes for those with lots of money...

I agree though, with higher power and money one SHOULD be willing to sacrifice more of it to help others.  However, we know the nature of mankind is NOT to do that (I mean, just listen to me, just a sentence ago I was complaining about a heavier tax burden).

Knowing what you will do if given the opportunity to pay less, vs knowing that it is right to pay more, and knowing that the only way you will do so is if you are mandated by law...well...that's one way to do it I suppose. 

In a perfect world there would be NO RICH or POOR among us.  Those with wealth and money (which, believe it or not probably would include a LOT of Americans in that, including probably most of the active membership of the church, especially those in leadership positions these days, though also including others who may also be among the top 50% of American earners and owners of wealth) would pay the proper amount to bring them to an equal level of those without money or wealth (and if you think you are poor, go visit North Africa sometime, you'll see poverty like you can't imagine.  In South America, Asia, and Africa are probably where MANY of our impoverished brothers and sisters are, some who can only dream of what homes with refrigerators, stoves, carpeted floors, etc are like) as all others in the Church, and in the world.

We would be more like the Nephites in their time after the Lord came...but I think we tend to be more like the young Rich Man who when asked to give up all he had and go follow the Lord...walked away.  It is not an easy thing to give all that you have away and follow the Lord, but that's what we probably need to be willing to do, or at least, that's probably one lesson I need to learn to apply to myself...even if no one else really needs that lesson.

I covet the things I have far too much (my library for one) and I am still working on being humble and subservient enough to be worthy of any reward in heaven. 

[Carborendum]

On 8/30/2024 at 7:19 PM, Phoenix_person said:

1) Optics. Running the country behind Joe's back may be a wet dream for true believers, but might not play well with swing voters.

If you read the rest of my post, I didn't say "behind Joe's back".  I said that she would "speak with the Pres and in cooperation with him... " So, this excuse is nullified.

On 8/30/2024 at 7:19 PM, Phoenix_person said:

2) The same thing that compelled Trump to stop a border bill that the Border Patrol itself signed off on: electability.

No, Trump didn't like the plan because it actually made it easier for people to cross the border.  Read the details.

On 8/30/2024 at 7:19 PM, Phoenix_person said:

To attempt a sports metaphor: you don't pull out your best plays in the preseason. You talk up the strength of your team and hope those season tickets keep selling. It sucks, but every politician does it whenever they think they can get away with it. Kamala and Biden acted on the border (or tried) because they knew that was going to be a hot topic this election season and it was their biggest policy weakness. It was a gamble because it annoyed their base, but Trump gifted them some ironclad campaign material when he soured the GOP on the bill. Kamala needs to hammer Trump on it every chance she gets. And FWIW, I do believe she'll bring the bill back if elected, because it's never too early to start thinking about 2028.

You can believe that.  But we all know that Kamala has no intention of implementing any of these measures once in office.

Edited September 2, 2024 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You can believe that.  But we all know that Kamala has no intention of implementing any of these measures once in office.

That may be the crux of the matter right there. 

Will she or won't she.  Is she just putting out empty promises?

People know of her actions before she was the Vice-President and many of those actions do not speak highly of her or what she will choose to do later.

We know of her actions while acting as Vice-President, and while the Biden administration has done many things, she has generally been kept to the background and so hasn't been seen as doing much of anything significant.  She HAS acted in the Senate at times on some crucial matters however.  When you look at those things you can see a particularly liberal slant which I'm not sure will win over many Conservatives.  In fact, I think looking at that record you may actually have some who swore not to vote for Trump actually rethinking that idea and now on the balance of who they will vote for.

Which leaves the Independents like I am.  I don't think I can vote for Trump as he is highly Immoral, the problem I see is that I don't see Kamala Harris as being an exemplary icon of morality either.  She doesn't have things in the past half as much as Trump, but she has those ghosts of the past of which I don't think she regrets at all.  Not that her most famous fling, with Brown, was entirely on her, but she should have been better than to be with a Married man who was blatantly separated from his spouse and actively cheating on the spouse (even if it was an agreed upon and allowable type of cheating by both sides of the marriage). 

Furthermore, statements of her claiming the work of others whilst ignoring the very people she's taking the credit from seem to have popped up on occasion, indicating that she may not be the most honest in her dealings, and willing to play both sides of the coin by doing one thing that opposes something, but if it happens and is good anyways, taking credit for it from those who actually acted on the issue. 

So, she does not seem the most moral of people either, and in fact, pretty immoral in comparison to some others.  At least Walz, for all I can see about him, seems to be genuinely liked and appreciated by those in his state and seems to be garnered overall as a more honest politician by those who seem to know him in his political position and by many of his adherents in the state he represents. 

I'd probably have an easier time voting for him if he were running as President than any of the other two who are running.  Actually, both VPs are better than their respective presidential candidates who they are running under from what I can see currently,. 

It's times like these it would nice to have something other than a simple two party system (yes, we have more than two parties but for all intents and purposes, on the Federal level if you want to vote for someone who probably will get into office, it needs to be someone from one of those two parties).  I'm not particularly fond of my options. 

Edited September 3, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[NeuroTypical]

On 9/2/2024 at 4:29 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In a perfect world there would be NO RICH or POOR among us.

I blame those who were impressed with this song 50 years ago.  They've had 50 years to implement their policies and solutions, and yet here we sit in the same imperfect world.  

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I blame those who were impressed with this song 50 years ago.  They've had 50 years to implement their policies and solutions, and yet here we sit in the same imperfect world.  

That song is awful. 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

That song is awful. 

You just don't have enough imagination!  You're the reason that every time we try to get Lennon's vision implemented, we end up with something we have to claim is "not what we mean by socialism"!

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You just don't have enough imagination!  You're the reason that every time we try to get Lennon's vision implemented, we end up with something we have to claim is "not what we mean by socialism"!

Lol! 
 

A change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

 

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I blame those who were impressed with this song 50 years ago.  They've had 50 years to implement their policies and solutions, and yet here we sit in the same imperfect world.  

The adherence to that song's message only works on an individual level. Only one person has made an earnest effort to get the rest of us there with him, and he died in prison last year.

[NeuroTypical]

43 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The adherence to that song's message only works on an individual level.

Tell that to Harris and Walz please.  From that first interview, at least half of their platform is 'no need for greed or hunger', and they need your vote to do it.

 

43 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Only one person has made an earnest effort to get the rest of us there with him, and he died in prison last year.

Oof.  Every boomer hippie and half the gen-x ones just winced inwardly at how off-track you children of their legacy have gone.    For the whole '90's, we all just assumed the internet had been invented solely to fight over this song.  Half the people who smoked pot in the '60's and '70's remember when Lennon performed this song at Woodstock, man.  On their behalf, they wanted me to remind you and yours that Imagine is the soul of the liberal/progressive movement, and Mr. Unabomber was a right wing Rush Limbaugh dittohead, thank you very much.  

Edited September 3, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The adherence to that song's message only works on an individual level.

Adherence to the idea that there's no heaven or God works on an individual level? Or the idea that there's no hell, hence no consequence for action? Of course it's easy to ignore God and think the wisdom of man has all the answers. But adherence to fantasy idealism doesn't really work on any level...individual or otherwise. Pretending there are no bad guys in the world won't magically makes them all disappear. The message in Imagine is pretty rubbish, imo.

[LDSGator]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Adherence to the idea that there's no heaven or God works on an individual level? Or the idea that there's no hell, hence no consequence for action? Of course it's easy to ignore God and think the wisdom of man has all the answers. But adherence to fantasy idealism doesn't really work on any level...individual or otherwise. Pretending there are no bad guys in the world won't magically makes them all disappear. The message in Imagine is pretty rubbish, imo.

It’s deliciously ironic that the guy who wrote it was a working class hero. Like all working class heroes he dated avant garde actresses, abused them and his children, and lived in a Manhattan penthouse spending thousands of dollars on heroin every day. 

No rich or poor indeed.  

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Tell that to Harris and Walz please.  From that first interview, at least half of their platform is 'no need for greed or hunger', and they need your vote to do it.

There's a lot of real estate between our current capitalist heckcape and Lennon's imagined utopia or Uncle Ted's primitism (or the Communist dictatorships of yesteryear). Europe has done a decent job of figuring it out. What's the argument against increasing the tax burden of our wealthiest citizens to improve access to health care and affordable housing for our poorest citizens? I have yet to hear a good one, tbh.

And let's not forget that Lennon's murderer cited John's hypocrisy as his primary motive. The hippie king himself couldn't hack the hippie lifestyle. He was worth $200M when he was gunned down in the Dakota. A higher tax burden could have helped him help others without putting a significant dent in his wealth or lifestyle.

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oof.  Every boomer hippie and half the gen-x ones just winced inwardly at how off-track you children of their legacy have gone.    For the whole '90's, we all just assumed the internet had been invented solely to fight over this song.  Half the people who smoked pot in the '60's and '70's remember when Lennon performed this song at Woodstock, man.  On their behalf, they wanted me to remind you and yours that Imagine is the soul of the liberal/progressive movement, and Mr. Unabomber was a right wing Rush Limbaugh dittohead, thank you very much.  

"Liberal" is a dirty word to some of us on the left. Historically, liberals have a track record of doing the bare minimum on their progressive platform to secure their base while simultaneously acting mostly in service of the status quo. The "leftists" that Ted described in his manifesto more closely resemble Dem establishment liberals than today's leftists (who Ted would probably also hate, because no one hates leftists more than other leftists). But no, Ted didn't really fit our political spectrum. He may be history's truest non-partisan citizen.

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Adherence to the idea that there's no heaven or God works on an individual level?

Or the idea that there's no hell, hence no consequence for action?

 

No, but belief that those things DO exist works exclusively on an individual level. After all, the fundamental reason that LDS parents don't baptize infants is that you believe it's important for the child to be able to make the choice themselves, but what 8 year-old with a textbook LDS upbringing is going to question it? I sure didn't. So in MY case, yes, rejecting my parents' religion as an adult was a conscious individual decision that I made. My son has had an areligious upbringing, so atheism is currently his natural default in the same way Mormonism was mine at his age. It's possible that one day he'll explore other options. I acknowledge and accept that, as does his mother. She has a pseudo-theistic belief system that's mostly outside of traditional Abrahamic dogma, and I doubt that she'll be teaching it to him.

Atheists believe in consequences. If I punch @LDSGator in face, he'll probably use his martial arts skills to give me an involuntary gender change. And then, most likely, I would be arrested and charged for assault. We are moral because we are socialized to be. Most parents use theistic religion to teach morality to their children, but theistic religion isn't the exclusive arbiter of morality.

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course it's easy to ignore God and think the wisdom of man has all the answers. But adherence to fantasy idealism doesn't really work on any level...individual or otherwise.

What you call fantasy, I call reality (and visa versa), which only further proves the subjectivity of religious belief.

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Pretending there are no bad guys in the world won't magically makes them all disappear. The message in Imagine is pretty rubbish, imo.

I think we're all in agreement on both counts.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I punch @LDSGator in face, he'll probably use his martial arts skills to give me an involuntary gender change

Cheaper than HRT too. 😛 

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

.....

What's the argument against increasing the tax burden of our wealthiest citizens to improve access to health care and affordable housing for our poorest citizens? I have yet to hear a good one, tbh.

.......

I will give you two.  First – it is an idea that has never worked has whenever tried it has made poverty more abundant.   A prime example is the Great Society established under President Johnston.  It was argued that by taxing the haves (just 2% of the GDP) and transferring through government regulation the money to the poor that poverty would be eliminated.   Currently through taxation the government is regulating money to the poor, that is almost 30% of the GDP and poverty today is worse than before the grand idea of the Great Society.

The argument is always that with just a little more taxes on the haves we can overcome poverty.  In light of history – I am of the mind that money (economy) is not the root cause of poverty in our modern society and money alone is not a solution.

The second reason – is the problem of entitlement.  Those receiving government subsidies begin to think they are entitled to those subsidies – perhaps even more.  I am more in favor of Milton Friedman’s concept of “Negative Income Tax”.  It is somewhat similar to guaranteed income but with a very important caveat.  It must be established in a manner that whatever an individual is able to earn by their own labor – they will always end up with more income.  Thus, there is always an incentive to work to increase one’s income rather than to petition more from the government or think the government can solve the problem on its own – that is truly an argument with no merit or example.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Atheists believe in consequences.

Consequences and "hell" are essentially synonymous. One doesn't need to believe in the so-called Christian idea of a burning lake of fire and brimstone to understand what it means to be in a state of hell. By saying "imagine there's no hell" the suggestion is to imagine if nothing hurts. No pain. No sorrow. No consequence. You don't fall down and break your neck and become a paraplegic, living your life in a new hell...no...imagine if that never happened... And as I said...it's a silly rubbish idea, whether one is an atheist or not.

I mean I could be wrong. Maybe John Lennon only literally meant to imagine there was no Christian flaming lake of fire where the wicked go after death. 🤷‍♂️

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

theistic religion isn't the exclusive arbiter of morality.

But truth is.

Generally, I'd say that theistic religious claims are truth claims though, and those who hold them believe them to be the arbiter of morality...because they believe them to be true. They are or they aren't.

Really, your belief that @LDSGator would karate you into oblivion is a religious claim, when it comes right down to it. An expression of faith.

But truth doesn't change based on claims. Which describe my problem with the song. Essentially, what it boils down to for me is, "Imagine that truth isn't true." Kumbaya. Let's all pretend.

I mean it's a fine song if it isn't taken too seriously. As a real philosophical idea though, it's woefully lame.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

karate

:: in my huffiest voice, through my nose ::

it’s taekwando. I stopped taking karate at brown belt and it was 15 years ago.
 

:: flips hair back, turns away from @The Folk Prophet and folds arms arrogantly :: 

[Phoenix_person]

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will give you two.  First – it is an idea that has never worked has whenever tried it has made poverty more abundant.   A prime example is the Great Society established under President Johnston.  It was argued that by taxing the haves (just 2% of the GDP) and transferring through government regulation the money to the poor that poverty would be eliminated.   Currently through taxation the government is regulating money to the poor, that is almost 30% of the GDP and poverty today is worse than before the grand idea of the Great Society.

The critics of the Great Society were right that you can't make a problem go away simply by throwing money at it. We were slow to learn that lesson, but we've learned. That's why a lot of government programs have shifted from a system of free handouts to systems of social support and work placement. Teach a man to fish, and all that. It's a lot easier to teach someone that has a roof over their head and food in their belly.

 

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The argument is always that with just a little more taxes on the haves we can overcome poverty.  In light of history – I am of the mind that money (economy) is not the root cause of poverty in our modern society

The realistic goal is reducing poverty, not eliminating it. The fact that we can't help everyone isn't a reason to not try to help as many as we can. 

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am more in favor of Milton Friedman’s concept of “Negative Income Tax”.  It is somewhat similar to guaranteed income but with a very important caveat.  It must be established in a manner that whatever an individual is able to earn by their own labor – they will always end up with more income.  Thus, there is always an incentive to work to increase one’s income rather than to petition more from the government or think the government can solve the problem on its own – that is truly an argument with no merit or example.

Have you looked at breakdowns of entitlement spending? Here's a good one. 18% of healthy non-elderly employed people are on benefits. That's over 55 million people, many of them full-time workers at companies that underpay them and screw them over on benefits while their CEOs are taking trips to outer space. The biggest drain on our economy isn't income support. It's food and medical support for underpaid employed people and the elderly. 

 

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But truth is.

Generally, I'd say that theistic religious claims are truth claims though, and those who hold them believe them to be the arbiter of morality...because they believe them to be true. They are or they aren't.

Really, your belief that @LDSGator would karate you into oblivion is a religious claim, when it comes right down to it. An expression of faith.

I happen to know that Gator has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My belief that he could rearrange my face if he felt so inclined is an evidence-based one.

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I mean it's a fine song if it isn't taken too seriously. 

Nah. It just sucks.

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

happen to know that Gator has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My belief that he could rearrange my face if he felt so inclined is an evidence-based one.

I made it all up to sound cool. All those tournament pictures, class pictures and tag ins on Facebook are fake news. I don’t know the difference between a 45 kick and a turning side. In fact, my wife doesn’t exist either. The woman @pam met was an actress. 

Edited September 4, 2024 by LDSGator