At what margin of electoral defeat will Trump be forced to admit defeat?

[ideologyhunter]

I have heard a prediction recently that I think has a possibility of happening.

On election night, Trump wins. One week later, after all the mail-in votes are counted, Biden wins.

I could see Fox running a screamer alert that T is the presumptive winner. But if multiple states refuse to call a winner because their counting isn't complete, then I can't see how a winner would be announced on Tuesday night. (Not that our President won't crow that he's the winner, regardless.) Biden should just remember: if there is an interim in which votes are being counted, do not accept Trump's offer of a parley on 5th Avenue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have heard a prediction recently that I think has a possibility of happening.

On election night, Trump wins. One week later, after all the mail-in votes are counted, Biden wins.

I could see Fox running a screamer alert that T is the presumptive winner. But if multiple states refuse to call a winner because their counting isn't complete, then I can't see how a winner would be announced on Tuesday night. (Not that our President won't crow that he's the winner, regardless.) Biden should just remember: if there is an interim in which votes are being counted, do not accept Trump's offer of a parley on 5th Avenue.

Four years ago the networks were willing to call it based on election night returns before the absentee ballots were counted. The last time there was an actual dispute in 2000 only one state wasn't definitively called, the rest were called before the absentee ballots were counted.

 

[bilby]

Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden

The latest Military Times poll shows a continued decline in active-duty service members’ views of President Donald Trump and a slight but significant preference for former Vice President Joe Biden in the upcoming November election among troops surveyed.

The results, collected before the political conventions earlier this month, appear to undercut claims from the president that his support among military members is strong thanks to big defense budget increases in recent years and promised moves to draw down troops from overseas conflict zones.

But the Military Times Polls, surveying active-duty troops in partnership with the Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) at Syracuse University, have seen a steady drop in troops’ opinion of the commander in chief since his election four years ago.

In the latest results — based on 1,018 active-duty troops surveyed in late July and early August — nearly half of respondents (49.9 percent) had an unfavorable view of the president, compared to about 38 percent who had a favorable view. Questions in the poll had a margin of error of up to 2 percent.

Among all survey participants, 42 percent said they “strongly” disapprove of Trump’s time in office.

This is good news.

I assume the military skews young, like, 25 and younger. I wonder how much that would explain it?

The military isn't a democracy though.

If lots of soldiers decide not to vote for Trump, or to vote for Biden, that's going to have a small effect on the results. It might be significant in swing states, but probably won't be amongst the most significant things in those states on election night.

The real importance of 'military support' for Trump is in deciding the actions (or inactions) they take when ordered to support him as CIC against what he will spin as an attempted coup d'état, if Biden's team attempt to have their man inaugurated (or even recognised as victor), while Trump's chaos merchants are still busy obscuring the result.

And that comes down to Trump's support (or otherwise) amongst the higher ranks (and therefore older demographic). There's a reason why third-world shitholes are often run by General Whoever, or Colonel Whatshisname, and rarely by Sergeant Whoisit or Corporal Thingumy.

A successful coup requires that at least some military units (or more accurately, their commanders) actively support the coup, while those who do not actively support, at least stay in their barracks.

If one side has support amongst senior officers who are prepared take an active part, and the bulk of those senior officers who lean towards the other side are persuaded that active combat on the streets of their own country is a cure that's worse than the disease, then the coup will succeed.

If the senior officers are fairly equally divided in both opinions and commitment to action, you get a civil war instead.

As both sides would likely frame a significant confusion that obscures the democratic process as a coup attempt against their side, the issue becomes not one of popularity (even amongst senior officers), but more one of readiness to lead their troops onto the streets. And that suggests that any coup might be resolved in favour of the more authoritarian and violent side.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think America's armed forces are like they were back in the day when General Curtis LeMay was fucking with NATO, threatening to nuke Cuba, and wanting to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age. Authority has been regulated since then reducing the possibility of a military engineered coup or takeover. The likelihood of a coup is practically nil.

However there is a fear that like Germany, America's volunteer military might become radicalized, Nazised. Back in the day when draft still existed military was pretty much a civilian affair with few lifers. What happened in Vietnam wouldn't happen with a professional Military.

I can't support following your logic bilby, mainly because civilian control is still largely maintained in the US, sentiment is becoming anti-interventionist largely due to misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US, although internationalist more now, is still basically isolationist when it comes to use of military and definately statist when it comes to nationalizing police and calling up the military in states.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have heard a prediction recently that I think has a possibility of happening.

On election night, Trump wins. One week later, after all the mail-in votes are counted, Biden wins.

I could see Fox running a screamer alert that T is the presumptive winner. But if multiple states refuse to call a winner because their counting isn't complete, then I can't see how a winner would be announced on Tuesday night. (Not that our President won't crow that he's the winner, regardless.) Biden should just remember: if there is an interim in which votes are being counted, do not accept Trump's offer of a parley on 5th Avenue.

That's called the "red mirage".

Trump and his allies are using the prospect of a 'red mirage' election result to prepare a betrayal narrative for November

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have heard a prediction recently that I think has a possibility of happening.

On election night, Trump wins. One week later, after all the mail-in votes are counted, Biden wins.

I could see Fox running a screamer alert that T is the presumptive winner. But if multiple states refuse to call a winner because their counting isn't complete, then I can't see how a winner would be announced on Tuesday night. (Not that our President won't crow that he's the winner, regardless.) Biden should just remember: if there is an interim in which votes are being counted, do not accept Trump's offer of a parley on 5th Avenue.

It's a deep state conspiracy. I won, just declare it!!!

 

[Elixir]

This is good news.

I assume the military skews young, like, 25 and younger. I wonder how much that would explain it?

The military isn't a democracy though.

If lots of soldiers decide not to vote for Trump, or to vote for Biden, that's going to have a small effect on the results. It might be significant in swing states, but probably won't be amongst the most significant things in those states on election night.

The real importance of 'military support' for Trump is in deciding the actions (or inactions) they take when ordered to support him as CIC against what he will spin as an attempted coup d'état, if Biden's team attempt to have their man inaugurated (or even recognised as victor), while Trump's chaos merchants are still busy obscuring the result.

And that comes down to Trump's support (or otherwise) amongst the higher ranks (and therefore older demographic). There's a reason why third-world shitholes are often run by General Whoever, or Colonel Whatshisname, and rarely by Sergeant Whoisit or Corporal Thingumy.

A successful coup requires that at least some military units (or more accurately, their commanders) actively support the coup, while those who do not actively support, at least stay in their barracks.

If one side has support amongst senior officers who are prepared take an active part, and the bulk of those senior officers who lean towards the other side are persuaded that active combat on the streets of their own country is a cure that's worse than the disease, then the coup will succeed.

If the senior officers are fairly equally divided in both opinions and commitment to action, you get a civil war instead.

As both sides would likely frame a significant confusion that obscures the democratic process as a coup attempt against their side, the issue becomes not one of popularity (even amongst senior officers), but more one of readiness to lead their troops onto the streets. And that suggests that any coup might be resolved in favour of the more authoritarian and violent side.

Hopefully pride in service prevails. My dealings with the military have been limited to medical procurement personnel in SOF, and I can't see ANY of them that I got to know at all, supporting a coup by Trump. I hope that the way Generals who have been roped into this administration have reacted to Trump, holds for their active service counterparts.

 

[angelo]

Because Obama is a moderate who governed pretty conservatively, and the Democrats are a center-right party? What point are you trying to make? Are you agreeing with my previous assessment?


ACA was a Republican plan, first implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, based off of a Heritage Foundation (extreme-right think-tank) plan.

That doesn't answer my question and you know it!

Okay, I'll bite. It's because you are wrong.

The Democrats didn't, "controlled both Congress and the senate for a considerable, ample amount of time", the Tea Party saw to that. Only a lying piece of shit would assert that. John Boehner was the original dishonest "Orange Man", That you are ignorant of who he was says a lot.

But you don't want to be educated, do you? You don't give a fuck about bad faith arguments if it lets you "win". Some people might call this a cuntish attitude.

They did for a considerable time control both houses during Obongo's 8 year term, for Kriste sake!

Wiki. " Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress alongside the country's first African-American president, Democrat Barack Obama."

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, I'll bite. It's because you are wrong.

The Democrats didn't, "controlled both Congress and the senate for a considerable, ample amount of time", the Tea Party saw to that. Only a lying piece of shit would assert that. John Boehner was the original dishonest "Orange Man", That you are ignorant of who he was says a lot.

But you don't want to be educated, do you? You don't give a fuck about bad faith arguments if it lets you "win". Some people might call this a cuntish attitude.

They did for a considerable time control both houses during Obongo's 8 year term, for Kriste sake!

Wiki. " Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress alongside the country's first African-American president, Democrat Barack Obama."

Nuance isn't your strong suit.

Let’s clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous “blue-dog” (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that’s necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that’s the House during the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had “total control” of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama’s “stimulus” was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn’t have “total control” of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it’s passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had “total control” of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had “total control” of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have “total control” of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have “total control’ of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, I'll bite. It's because you are wrong.

The Democrats didn't, "controlled both Congress and the senate for a considerable, ample amount of time", the Tea Party saw to that. Only a lying piece of shit would assert that. John Boehner was the original dishonest "Orange Man", That you are ignorant of who he was says a lot.

But you don't want to be educated, do you? You don't give a fuck about bad faith arguments if it lets you "win". Some people might call this a cuntish attitude.

They did for a considerable time control both houses during Obongo's 8 year term, for Kriste sake!

Wiki. " Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress alongside the country's first African-American president, Democrat Barack Obama."

Reality: Filibuster.

They didn't have enough control to get things through the filibuster and thus no real ability to pass stuff the Republicans disagreed with.

 

[Elixir]

McConnell warns Democrats about changing Senate rules to kill the filibuster

The Senate GOP leader spoke as some experts believe there's a fair chance his party could lose control of the chamber in November.
...
Achieving "cloture" initially required unanimous consent. In 1917, it was cut to 67 votes. The last time it changed was 1975, requiring 60 votes to end debate. It is not a Constitutional requirement and can be changed with 51 votes in the Senate.

Of course while his party was in the majority he eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments so Trump could corrupt the SCOTUS by appointing a drunken rapist by mere majority vote. I hope the Dems do win both houses. If they do, I hope they pull a McConnell and eliminate the filibuster for whatever is necessary to start undoing the damage that Trump has done. Like a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure bill, putting some teeth into anti-corruption statutes like the Hatch act and emoluments clauses, restoring congressional oversight over the executive branch, funding public schools and teachers, taxing big Companies and 8+figure earners fairly... etc..
If they only have two years of simple majority in both houses, they need to get to work immediately without wasting time on catering to teabagger whining. If they can only get a mega infrastructure project going, it will create millions of jobs, improve the quality of life for most Americans, restore national pride and probably guarantee their political dominance in 2024.

 

[angelo]

McConnell warns Democrats about changing Senate rules to kill the filibuster

The Senate GOP leader spoke as some experts believe there's a fair chance his party could lose control of the chamber in November.
...
Achieving "cloture" initially required unanimous consent. In 1917, it was cut to 67 votes. The last time it changed was 1975, requiring 60 votes to end debate. It is not a Constitutional requirement and can be changed with 51 votes in the Senate.

Of course while his party was in the majority he eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments so Trump could corrupt the SCOTUS by appointing a drunken rapist by mere majority vote. I hope the Dems do win both houses. If they do, I hope they pull a McConnell and eliminate the filibuster for whatever is necessary to start undoing the damage that Trump has done. Like a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure bill, putting some teeth into anti-corruption statutes like the Hatch act and emoluments clauses, restoring congressional oversight over the executive branch, funding public schools and teachers, taxing big Companies and 8+figure earners fairly... etc..
If they only have two years of simple majority in both houses, they need to get to work immediately without wasting time on catering to teabagger whining. If they can only get a mega infrastructure project going, it will create millions of jobs, improve the quality of life for most Americans, restore national pride and probably guarantee their political dominance in 2024.

Pass national economic destruction policy like the estimated cost of the over 100 trillion USD GND? The corporate tax rate was reduced by the Trump administration in line with America's international economic competitors. Halting American corporations moving their operations and jobs to lower taxing countries. Great idea to undo most likely the most successful policy of the Trump administration! If enacted, it could spell what the Soviet Union failed to do........the destruction of USA!

Table 4. Average Corporate Tax Rate by Region or Group, 2019
Sources: Statutory corporate income tax rates are from OECD, “Table II.1. Statutory corporate income tax rate”; KPMG, “Corporate tax rates table”; and researched individually, see Tax Foundation, “worldwide-corporate-tax-rates.” GDP calculations are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “International Macroeconomics Data Set.”

Region Average Rate Average Rate Weighted by GDP Number of Countries Covered
Africa 28.45% 28.15% 49
Asia 21.32% 26.08% 46
Europe 20.27% 25.13% 39
North America 25.85% 26.26% 22
Oceania 23.75% 29.74% 8
South America 27.63% 32.01% 12
G7 27.65% 27.22% 7
OECD 23.59% 26.53% 36
BRICS 27.40% 26.52% 5
EU 21.77% 25.95% 28
G20 27.11% 26.94% 19
World 24.18% 26.30% 176

 

[KeepTalking]

McConnell warns Democrats about changing Senate rules to kill the filibuster

The Senate GOP leader spoke as some experts believe there's a fair chance his party could lose control of the chamber in November.
...
Achieving "cloture" initially required unanimous consent. In 1917, it was cut to 67 votes. The last time it changed was 1975, requiring 60 votes to end debate. It is not a Constitutional requirement and can be changed with 51 votes in the Senate.

Of course while his party was in the majority he eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments so Trump could corrupt the SCOTUS by appointing a drunken rapist by mere majority vote. I hope the Dems do win both houses. If they do, I hope they pull a McConnell and eliminate the filibuster for whatever is necessary to start undoing the damage that Trump has done. Like a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure bill, putting some teeth into anti-corruption statutes like the Hatch act and emoluments clauses, restoring congressional oversight over the executive branch, funding public schools and teachers, taxing big Companies and 8+figure earners fairly... etc..
If they only have two years of simple majority in both houses, they need to get to work immediately without wasting time on catering to teabagger whining. If they can only get a mega infrastructure project going, it will create millions of jobs, improve the quality of life for most Americans, restore national pride and probably guarantee their political dominance in 2024.

Pass national economic destruction policy like the estimated cost of the over 100 trillion USD GND? The corporate tax rate was reduced by the Trump administration in line with America's international economic competitors. Halting American corporations moving their operations and jobs to lower taxing countries. Great idea to undo most likely the most successful policy of the Trump administration! If enacted, it could spell what the Soviet Union failed to do........the destruction of USA!

Table 4. Average Corporate Tax Rate by Region or Group, 2019
Sources: Statutory corporate income tax rates are from OECD, “Table II.1. Statutory corporate income tax rate”; KPMG, “Corporate tax rates table”; and researched individually, see Tax Foundation, “worldwide-corporate-tax-rates.” GDP calculations are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “International Macroeconomics Data Set.”

Region Average Rate Average Rate Weighted by GDP Number of Countries Covered
Africa 28.45% 28.15% 49
Asia 21.32% 26.08% 46
Europe 20.27% 25.13% 39
North America 25.85% 26.26% 22
Oceania 23.75% 29.74% 8
South America 27.63% 32.01% 12
G7 27.65% 27.22% 7
OECD 23.59% 26.53% 36
BRICS 27.40% 26.52% 5
EU 21.77% 25.95% 28
G20 27.11% 26.94% 19
World 24.18% 26.30% 176

WTF dude? Do you even read or pay attention to your own sources?

You did not present any data regarding the USA, what you did provide are regional averages, which lump the USA in with 11 other countries in North America. And what do we find in the weighted average? The North American region pretty much nails the average for the world. Next time you go hunting for data to support what you already believe to be true, try understanding the data you decide to present, before you make a fool of yourself again.

 

[angelo]

Pass national economic destruction policy like the estimated cost of the over 100 trillion USD GND? The corporate tax rate was reduced by the Trump administration in line with America's international economic competitors. Halting American corporations moving their operations and jobs to lower taxing countries. Great idea to undo most likely the most successful policy of the Trump administration! If enacted, it could spell what the Soviet Union failed to do........the destruction of USA!

Table 4. Average Corporate Tax Rate by Region or Group, 2019
Sources: Statutory corporate income tax rates are from OECD, “Table II.1. Statutory corporate income tax rate”; KPMG, “Corporate tax rates table”; and researched individually, see Tax Foundation, “worldwide-corporate-tax-rates.” GDP calculations are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “International Macroeconomics Data Set.”

Region Average Rate Average Rate Weighted by GDP Number of Countries Covered
Africa 28.45% 28.15% 49
Asia 21.32% 26.08% 46
Europe 20.27% 25.13% 39
North America 25.85% 26.26% 22
Oceania 23.75% 29.74% 8
South America 27.63% 32.01% 12
G7 27.65% 27.22% 7
OECD 23.59% 26.53% 36
BRICS 27.40% 26.52% 5
EU 21.77% 25.95% 28
G20 27.11% 26.94% 19
World 24.18% 26.30% 176

WTF dude? Do you even read or pay attention to your own sources?

You did not present any data regarding the USA, what you did provide are regional averages, which lump the USA in with 11 other countries in North America. And what do we find in the weighted average? The North American region pretty much nails the average for the world. Next time you go hunting for data to support what you already believe to be true, try understanding the data you decide to present, before you make a fool of yourself again.

Like this.?..........................

How the U.S. Compares
With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the U.S. corporate tax has been slashed from 40%—the second highest in the world as of 2017—to 21% in 2018, below the global corporate tax rate average of 23.79%. The decrease in the U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the most dramatic decreases in any country since the beginning of the 21st century. Only Kuwait, which decreased its corporate tax rate from 55% to 15% in 2009, had a bigger percentage change.

In contrast, it took Canada nine years to slowly decrease its corporate tax rate from 36.6% in 2003 to 26.5%. Japan also slowly decreased its corporate tax rate from 42% in 2003 to 30.62% in 2019.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051915/corporate-tax-rates-highs-and-lows.asp

 

[KeepTalking]

Pass national economic destruction policy like the estimated cost of the over 100 trillion USD GND? The corporate tax rate was reduced by the Trump administration in line with America's international economic competitors. Halting American corporations moving their operations and jobs to lower taxing countries. Great idea to undo most likely the most successful policy of the Trump administration! If enacted, it could spell what the Soviet Union failed to do........the destruction of USA!

Table 4. Average Corporate Tax Rate by Region or Group, 2019
Sources: Statutory corporate income tax rates are from OECD, “Table II.1. Statutory corporate income tax rate”; KPMG, “Corporate tax rates table”; and researched individually, see Tax Foundation, “worldwide-corporate-tax-rates.” GDP calculations are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “International Macroeconomics Data Set.”

Region Average Rate Average Rate Weighted by GDP Number of Countries Covered
Africa 28.45% 28.15% 49
Asia 21.32% 26.08% 46
Europe 20.27% 25.13% 39
North America 25.85% 26.26% 22
Oceania 23.75% 29.74% 8
South America 27.63% 32.01% 12
G7 27.65% 27.22% 7
OECD 23.59% 26.53% 36
BRICS 27.40% 26.52% 5
EU 21.77% 25.95% 28
G20 27.11% 26.94% 19
World 24.18% 26.30% 176

WTF dude? Do you even read or pay attention to your own sources?

You did not present any data regarding the USA, what you did provide are regional averages, which lump the USA in with 11 other countries in North America. And what do we find in the weighted average? The North American region pretty much nails the average for the world. Next time you go hunting for data to support what you already believe to be true, try understanding the data you decide to present, before you make a fool of yourself again.

Like this.?..........................

How the U.S. Compares
With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the U.S. corporate tax has been slashed from 40%—the second highest in the world as of 2017—to 21% in 2018, below the global corporate tax rate average of 23.79%. The decrease in the U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the most dramatic decreases in any country since the beginning of the 21st century. Only Kuwait, which decreased its corporate tax rate from 55% to 15% in 2009, had a bigger percentage change.

In contrast, it took Canada nine years to slowly decrease its corporate tax rate from 36.6% in 2003 to 26.5%. Japan also slowly decreased its corporate tax rate from 42% in 2003 to 30.62% in 2019.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051915/corporate-tax-rates-highs-and-lows.asp

Man, you have really got to start reading your sources before you post them. This is the very next paragraph after the one you quoted:

The Bottom Line
There's been much debate—particularly in the U.S. with a historically corporate tax-friendly Republican party in power—over whether or not a lower corporate tax rate spurs economic growth. While the impact of the TCJA on the overall U.S. economy won't be known for some time, it is likely that U.S. corporations will continue to park money in tax-free countries such as Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands even as they create jobs in the U.S.

 

[Elixir]

...try understanding the data you decide to present, before you make a fool of yourself again.

Oh yeah, right - like that's going to happen.
Having established a totally consistent pattern of quote mining and lies in the interest of advancing ignorance, do you have any reason to expect him to change?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Along with the Red Mirage, as it is called, there is another thing to consider.

People are talking about "Interim President Pelosi" if it isn't settled by inauguration day. No. She's third in line if there are vacancies from death, disability, or removal from office. There is, in Article 2 and Amendment 12, a procedure for what to do if the EC isn't settled.

The House convenes. The choose. You're probably thinking "yay, the House is majority Democrat" except that's not how it works. Each state submits one vote.

27 states have a slate that is majority Republican. 21 states have a slate that is majority Democrat. One state is evenly tied, and one state is 7 D, 6 R, 1 L.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wtf

 

[angelo]

Like this.?..........................

How the U.S. Compares
With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the U.S. corporate tax has been slashed from 40%—the second highest in the world as of 2017—to 21% in 2018, below the global corporate tax rate average of 23.79%. The decrease in the U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the most dramatic decreases in any country since the beginning of the 21st century. Only Kuwait, which decreased its corporate tax rate from 55% to 15% in 2009, had a bigger percentage change.

In contrast, it took Canada nine years to slowly decrease its corporate tax rate from 36.6% in 2003 to 26.5%. Japan also slowly decreased its corporate tax rate from 42% in 2003 to 30.62% in 2019.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/051915/corporate-tax-rates-highs-and-lows.asp

Man, you have really got to start reading your sources before you post them. This is the very next paragraph after the one you quoted:

The Bottom Line
There's been much debate—particularly in the U.S. with a historically corporate tax-friendly Republican party in power—over whether or not a lower corporate tax rate spurs economic growth. While the impact of the TCJA on the overall U.S. economy won't be known for some time, it is likely that U.S. corporations will continue to park money in tax-free countries such as Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands even as they create jobs in the U.S.

Yes I read it. Also that: That it is likely that US corporations will continue to park money in tax-free countries such as Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands even as they create jobs in the US. No mention of the dividends the shareholders of these corporations receive on their investments though! Who's the ignoramus again?

By the way, do you know who/what a shareholder is? I doubt it, as commos stride for equality. Everyone shares the poverty equally.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes I read it. Also that: That it is likely that US corporations will continue to park money in tax-free countries such as Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands even as they create jobs in the US. No mention of the dividends the shareholders of these corporations receive on their investments though! Who's the ignoramus again?

By the way, do you know who/what a shareholder is? I doubt it, as commos stride for equality. Everyone shares the poverty equally.

A shareholder used to be a person that bought a piece of a company. The share provided a company with access to more money for expansion and the share provided the investor with access to profit sharing or an attempt to sell the share for more if the company grew in value.

A IPO works that way to, kind of. But generally these days, being a shareholder when buying a share that has been floating around for decades is kind of like saying you are a shareholder in a casino when you put money down on 17.