Dem Post Mortem

[Emily Lake]

I wanted a female president who was willing to compromise and who would do her best to treat all Americans, regardless of who they voted for

I want a president (irrespective of their sex) who would do those things. Being female isn't a meaningful criteria to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

What are you yelling at me for? I didn't vote for him.

You've committed the cardinal sin of not demonizing him with sufficient contempt, therefore you're just as bad as those horrible deplorables

I didn't vote for him either, but it hasn't slowed anyone down calling me names one bit. Welcome to the club.

 

[Emily Lake]

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

See, the really really important thing here isn't to approach the topic rationally, and with a degree of civility toward all parties, but rather to prove your dedication by making sure we spew enough hate to convince you of our political purity. Otherwise, we're apostates who need burning at the stake

 

[Emily Lake]

So it's okay when the righties do it but lefties shouldn't?

Take a step back here, and realize that NOBODY has suggested this.

The thread is a DEM post mortem. The premise is what DEMS could have done differently, and what they should do differently in the future in order to win.

I am fairly confident that "Dems din't do nuffin wrong, Dems were absolutely perfect, it's just that over half the voters were stupid poopyheads" is not a useful strategy.

 

[Emily Lake]

She was never too popular as a vice president, although before September 2021 her approval was above disapproval. She did enjoy a bump when Biden decided not to seek reelection and she was de facto handed the nomination. But that was more out of relief that Biden will no longer run and obligation to fall behind the Party choice than any real enthusiasm for Harris herself.

To be fair... I don't think ANY president, VP, or candidate has managed to get over 50% approval among the general populace in a couple of decades. Generally speaking, disapproval with elected officials has been growing over time, regardless of their party.

 

[Emily Lake]

it’s very likely that had the voters who turned up for Biden had also turned up for Harris she would have won, even without getting those who voted for Trump.

My impression is that most voters out there didn't actually turn up for Biden, they turned out against Trump. But in the eyes of a lot of people, Biden didn't end up being all that much better than Trump, and many people found themselves with increased costs and less disposable income and basically, "it's the economy, stupid" won in the end. Incumbents across many developed nations got ousted, and there's been a bit of a shift toward a more conservative perspective in several countries.

At the end of the day, I think we're seeing a lot of "Well, that didn't work, let's try this instead".

 

[Shadowy Man]

it’s very likely that had the voters who turned up for Biden had also turned up for Harris she would have won, even without getting those who voted for Trump.

My impression is that most voters out there didn't actually turn up for Biden, they turned out against Trump.

For the purposes of my statement that’s a distinction without a difference.

But in the eyes of a lot of people, Biden didn't end up being all that much better than Trump, and many people found themselves with increased costs and less disposable income and basically, "it's the economy, stupid" won in the end. Incumbents across many developed nations got ousted, and there's been a bit of a shift toward a more conservative perspective in several countries.

At the end of the day, I think we're seeing a lot of "Well, that didn't work, let's try this instead".

Perhaps, but that would demonstrate a simplistic view of economics and politics.

 

[ZiprHead]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

This is your response from post 1183 of this thread. Your displeasure with a tax deduction is quite clear. The thing to keep in mind is that taxes is an expense for a business, just like insurance, LOC loan interest, etc. Having lower taxes means you can use those extra dollars you've retained to invest in your employees (higher wages, etc), add capital equipment, add to your "rainy day fund", or whatever makes sense in your particular situation. Lower taxes is one way the government can "aid business to keep employess employed".

Here is what I said that you linked to:

Yes, a tax deduction for nothing other than having a business.

Please explain the difference between this post and my statement above.

Besides, for your own taxes, you are allowed a standard deduction. Isn't that essentially, in your words "giving you money for doing nothing but existing"?

I'm a real human with real human needs. Is this "Corporations are people, my friend."?

If I was a business I would be able to deduct my food and housing. And much more. I cannot. A comparison that cannot be evaluated.

 

[ZiprHead]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

A simple analogy of survival of an infant with the survival of a business is what you did.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is.

Wrong. I'm all for allowing the government to aid business to keep employees employed and the economy humming. I'm against giving companies money for doing nothing but existing.

This is your response from post 1183 of this thread. Your displeasure with a tax deduction is quite clear. The thing to keep in mind is that taxes is an expense for a business, just like insurance, LOC loan interest, etc. Having lower taxes means you can use those extra dollars you've retained to invest in your employees (higher wages, etc), add capital equipment, add to your "rainy day fund", or whatever makes sense in your particular situation. Lower taxes is one way the government can "aid business to keep employess employed".

Here is what I said that you linked to:

Yes, a tax deduction for nothing other than having a business.

Please explain the difference between this post and my statement above.

Besides, for your own taxes, you are allowed a standard deduction. Isn't that essentially, in your words "giving you money for doing nothing but existing"?

I'm a real human with real human needs. Is this "Corporations are people, my friend."?

If I was a business I would be able to deduct my food and housing. And much more. I cannot. A comparison that cannot be evaluated.

Also, individual people are taxed on their income, whilst corporations are taxed on their profits (there are reasons for this, but are irrelevant to the analogy being discussed).

 

[Derec]

Sure, but they don't have the numbers or the power to elect a supremely unsuitable man to a position of great power.

Of course they do. Venezuelans elected Hugo Chavez in 1999 and his regime ruined the country. There is an old joke that implementing socialism in the Sahara desert would lead to sand shortages. Well, Venezuela has world's largest proved reserves of oil but also fuel shortages.
Brazil elected a guy who has a 2nd grade education and who served time in prison for political corruption.
And that's just two examples.

Also, simply stating a fact is not bigoted. If I said Americans have the most powerful military in the world is that bigoted?

That is objectively true. Your quip that Americans are uniquely stupid is not.

That is a nice evasion. What about crimes where there has been no conviction, though there should have been?

We are not doing that with Debs either. Compare like with like.

For instance, many people have been convicted or even executed for stealing classified government documents, and Trump stole more than everyone else combined.

I think Trump should have been indicted sooner on the documents case and that the hush money case should not have been pursued.
That said, when comparing say Trump's and Debs' criminal records, we should compare like with like, i.e. convictions and convictions, not convictions and indictments .

Or what if a serial killer is never convicted (say they were shot dead by police) - are they then not guilty (other than on a legal technicality)?

Nobody is accusing Trump (or Debs) of being a serial killer. So what is the point of this example?
Btw, this argument has been advanced on here in earnest about "heroes of the #BLM movement" who were shot by police - that we can't say that they were guilty of any crime (such as attacking police or shooting at someone) because they were never tried.

 

[thebeave]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

A simple analogy of survival of an infant with the survival of a business is what you did.

Yes. That's what I did. Maybe you don't understand how analogies work:

What Is Analogy? Definition and Examples of Analogy in Literature

2. Analogies that identify shared abstraction. This type of analogy compares two things that are technically unrelated, in order to draw comparisons between an attribute or pattern they share. For instance, consider the analogy, “Raising children is like gardening—nurture them and be patient.” This example compares the pattern that is similar in both raising children and gardening. This type of analogy is useful in writing because it can help make abstract ideas (like raising children) more concrete by drawing on readers’ background knowledge of familiar images (like gardening).

If I was dumb, being deliberately obtuse and/or trying to slanderously shame someone for a lack of moral values, I would protest that paragraph above and say, "You're comparing children to some plants?! What the fuck is wrong with you? Children are much more important than plants!! You are an awful person!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No you didn't!

I did.

Are you really going to go there? Do you know what Debs did? He protested against US involvement in The Great War. I would have been as guilty of "sedition" in 2003. To hear people whine about speech and free speech to say that Eugene Debs crime of protesting against the Great War was a crime at all is telling to how little you apparently know about America history.

I thought he incited people to interfere with the draft. That is at least what the courts found.

Debs didn't do shit that warranted "sedition" charges. A decent number of people were imprisoned for protesting The Great War, some pretty ugly stuff was going on then... you know... actual tyranny-lite stuff.

Trump was caught red handed trying to obstruct access to classified documents, and the system couldn't even get that to a trial.

Why did "the system" wait until mid-2023 to indict him on that?

"Wait"? Do you really forget?

Jun 2022. The Feds finally gave up on Trump
Nov 2022. Garland appoints Smith to look into it
Nov 2022, Ailleen Cannon tried to torpedo the entire thing immediately
Dec 2022, 11st Appelate Court spanks Cannon in a near historicalreversal.
Jun 2023, investigation officially on Trump
Jun 9, 2023, Trump indicted on 37 counts.

So, an investigation took 7 months, which involved very complication testimony (ie needing courts to compel it) of secret service, Trump's lawyer. And then charges. Had Trump just given the things back, nothing would have happened.

Debs gave everything he had to the nation to make it better.

Did he?

Yes, he did. Read a book. Debs fought tirelessly for the laborer.

 

[laughing dog]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

A simple analogy of survival of an infant with the survival of a business is what you did.

Yes. That's what I did. Maybe you don't understand how analogies work:

What Is Analogy? Definition and Examples of Analogy in Literature

2. Analogies that identify shared abstraction. This type of analogy compares two things that are technically unrelated, in order to draw comparisons between an attribute or pattern they share. For instance, consider the analogy, “Raising children is like gardening—nurture them and be patient.” This example compares the pattern that is similar in both raising children and gardening. This type of analogy is useful in writing because it can help make abstract ideas (like raising children) more concrete by drawing on readers’ background knowledge of familiar images (like gardening).

If I was dumb, being deliberately obtuse and/or trying to slanderously shame someone for a lack of moral values, I would protest that paragraph above and say, "You're comparing children to some plants?! What the fuck is wrong with you? Children are much more important than plants!! You are an awful person!"

IMO, analogies work better when they are not stupid.

 

[Bomb#20]

Debs gave everything he had to the nation to make it better.

Did he?

Yes, he did. Read a book. Debs fought tirelessly for the laborer.

Debs spent twenty years fighting tirelessly for the laborer to make the nation better. Then he had a road-to-Damascus moment, became a convert, and spent the next thirty years fighting tirelessly for collective ownership of the means of production. If he'd succeeded in that aim it would have made the nation far worse and it especially would have been a disaster for the laborer.

 

[Derec]

Debs didn't do shit that warranted "sedition" charges.

That is your opinion. Similarly it can be argued that what Trump did in the hush money case did not warrant felony charges, since Bragg engaged in some highly questionable legal maneuvering to upgrade a misdemeanor to a felony, and that he did it because he was targeting a political enemy.
Besides, Debs also spent 6 months in prison in 1894/95 for his activities during the Pullman Strike.

"Wait"? Do you really forget?

Even if you think Feds could not have moved quicker, indicting in mid-2023 when there is no chance to not run into the presidential campaign was never going to go well. Especially if you have Alvin "Leeroy Jenkins" Bragg running headlong into his own prosecution, a prosecution that actually made Trump more popular because it smacked of using law as a political weapon.

Yes, he did. Read a book. Debs fought tirelessly for the laborer.

He wanted to implement socialism. That would not have helped the laborers.

 

[laughing dog]

Debs didn't do shit th

Yes, he did. Read a book. Debs fought tirelessly for the laborer.

He wanted to implement socialism. That would not have helped the laborers.

You realize that does not rebut that Debs fought tirelessly for labor.

 

[Derec]

You realize that does not rebut that Debs fought tirelessly for labor.

What is that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Very different thing--she's talking about startup costs. And if I understand it correctly it's something I have long supported: small businesses should in most cases not need to worry about depreciation and related matters of distributing costs to the "right" year. If you're doing a lot of accounting already the compliance cost is minimal, but for the little guy it's a lot of stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. I'd be fine with any business with less than $50k of stuff that would normally depreciate simply allowed to write it off in the year it was incurred.

I know what she's referring to. I don't disagree myself, in general, about Kamala's proposal, though going from $5,000 to $50,000 (a 10 fold increase!), seems a little sudden and steep. Five thousand isn't much of writeoff for a lot of businesses. I question whether that might be too drastic of a change to tax revenue. That said, I'm not sure I see the logic in being strongly in favor of tax breaks during small business startup, but being against any sort of tax breaks after the first year, like Ziprhead is. Its tough to keep a small business thriving, especially these days, with high commodity prices, interest rates, rent, gasoline, utilities, etc.

Sorta reminds me of what the Dems say about Republicans regarding abortion and childcare. That is, the Republicans insist on getting the fetus born, but lose interest in nurturing that life when it comes to supplemental aid, childcare subsidies, parental leave, etc.

Everything you need to know what is wrong with how some conservatives think summed up in one post. There isn't anything particularly wrong, however, the emphases are the issue.

You've lost me on this. What "emphases" are you referring to, and what is the "conservative wrong think" in my post?

You equated human survival interests with running a business. It is an anti-septic view of the world, at best.

I am not equating survival of an infant with the survival of a business. That would be ridiculous. Its just a simple analogy. You (and others) read wayyyyy to much into my posts sometimes.

A simple analogy of survival of an infant with the survival of a business is what you did.

Yes. That's what I did. Maybe you don't understand how analogies work:

What Is Analogy? Definition and Examples of Analogy in Literature

2. Analogies that identify shared abstraction. This type of analogy compares two things that are technically unrelated, in order to draw comparisons between an attribute or pattern they share. For instance, consider the analogy, “Raising children is like gardening—nurture them and be patient.” This example compares the pattern that is similar in both raising children and gardening. This type of analogy is useful in writing because it can help make abstract ideas (like raising children) more concrete by drawing on readers’ background knowledge of familiar images (like gardening).

If I was dumb, being deliberately obtuse and/or trying to slanderously shame someone for a lack of moral values, I would protest that paragraph above and say, "You're comparing children to some plants?! What the fuck is wrong with you? Children are much more important than plants!! You are an awful person!"

What is the difference between equating and analogising?

 

[laughing dog]

You realize that does not rebut that Debs fought tirelessly for labor.

What is that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That Debs’s goal was ill-judged is your opinion.