2024 Presidential Election Thread

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

We like in a time where there is any option for news media you want.  The “big, bad media” is a weak, weak argument.

I consider myself a pretty big consumer of media.  Until this week I never heard of Laura Loomer.  Yet today its in your face.  Had to google her.  Yes I found all the info I needed to make a judgement.  Yes we live in a time where we can find the truth or believe a lie.  But some outlets have a pretty big flashing sign that attracts attention.

It trickled down to this site so I commented.  As for the media.  There is no greater outlet to drive the masses than the media.  You know it, I know it, and those seeking power and influence know it.  The media is a preferred tool of any totalitarian regime.  So to write off as weak that powers seek to influence a media narrative and are successful at large outlets would be ignorant.

Question had you heard or were up to speed with this Loomer before this week?

Last week Kamala said she didn’t want to take away your guns. Today she says “Ban Assault Weapons”. Clown

https://x.com/vp/status/1834965330537357349?s=46&t=6w2XbPMrNrOkLnwSSn4TOQ

posted by iclfan2

Last week Kamala said she didn’t want to take away your guns. Today she says “Ban Assault Weapons”. Clown

https://x.com/vp/status/1834965330537357349?s=46&t=6w2XbPMrNrOkLnwSSn4TOQ

Yeah, that's a really good way to cause massive problems in this country. 

posted by majorspark

I consider myself a pretty big consumer of media.  Until this week I never heard of Laura Loomer.  Yet today its in your face.  Had to google her.  Yes I found all the info I needed to make a judgement.  Yes we live in a time where we can find the truth or believe a lie.  But some outlets have a pretty big flashing sign that attracts attention.

It trickled down to this site so I commented.  As for the media.  There is no greater outlet to drive the masses than the media.  You know it, I know it, and those seeking power and influence know it.  The media is a preferred tool of any totalitarian regime.  So to write off as weak that powers seek to influence a media narrative and are successful at large outlets would be ignorant.

Question had you heard or were up to speed with this Loomer before this week?

posted by majorspark

I consider myself a pretty big consumer of media.  Until this week I never heard of Laura Loomer.

Well, even The Young Turks are having a field day over Morning Joe whining about objective truths haha! Things I never saw in today's bingo card...

posted by majorspark

I consider myself a pretty big consumer of media.  Until this week I never heard of Laura Loomer.  Yet today its in your face.  Had to google her.  Yes I found all the info I needed to make a judgement.  Yes we live in a time where we can find the truth or believe a lie.  But some outlets have a pretty big flashing sign that attracts attention.

It trickled down to this site so I commented.  As for the media.  There is no greater outlet to drive the masses than the media.  You know it, I know it, and those seeking power and influence know it.  The media is a preferred tool of any totalitarian regime.  So to write off as weak that powers seek to influence a media narrative and are successful at large outlets would be ignorant.

Question had you heard or were up to speed with this Loomer before this week?

I wasn’t up on Laura Loomer, eating pets, Walz’s DUI, Kamala sleeping her way up, etc.  They all come about the same way.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I wasn’t up on Laura Loomer, eating pets, Walz’s DUI, Kamala sleeping her way up, etc.  They all come about the same way.  

I wonder what the odds are at least some of this is leftwing media operators creating conspiracy theories so they can then talk about the alarming crap coming out of the right wing?  Tail wagging the dog stuff.  It definitely happened, a lot, during the whole Russia Russia Russia fiasco!

And, yes, I realize that's more than likely a conspiracy theory that has been out there for a while.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I wasn’t up on Laura Loomer, eating pets, Walz’s DUI, Kamala sleeping her way up, etc.  They all come about the same way.  

Loomer and the pet eating just this week.  Had not heard of Walz's DUI.  Kamala's personal activities have been in public discourse for well over a decade.

As for this pet eating if its a thing is it that far fetched.  I mean if you come from a shithole country where this is normal for survival some may continue to do so until taught otherwise.  Your always going to get the good the bad and the ugly.

posted by majorspark

Loomer and the pet eating just this week.  Had not heard of Walz's DUI.  Kamala's personal activities have been in public discourse for well over a decade.

As for this pet eating if its a thing is it that far fetched.  I mean if you come from a shithole country where this is normal for survival some may continue to do so until taught otherwise.  Your always going to get the good the bad and the ugly.

Laura Loomer isn’t new to the scene either - everyone hearing about her is what’s new.  Just like every other shocking thing that pops up about a politician during election season.

I don’t even know what to say about the Haitians stealing and eating pets.  I am reading Robert Caro’s biography of LBJ.  During the time of WW1, there was a HUGE movement in Texas to pass a law allowing citizen’s arrest of German-Americans because it was believed they were stealing and burning Americans’ flags to honor the Kaiser.  Sounded eerily familiar.

After the debate MSNBC also were saying that Trump's claim about threatening the leader of the taliban leader was suspect because Abdul Ghani Baradar  didn't exist and they said the leader of the taliban was somebody else.

From 2020:

https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-says-he-had-very-good-talk-with-taliban-leader/30467098.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Ghani_Baradar

MSNBC is turning out to be the worst with factual information. 

From one of my former college fraternity brothers. 

And Mark Cuban on CNN saying that Kamala Harris has called him to get an idea of how to tax wealthy people/business owners.

LMFAO!

posted by CenterBHSFan

And Mark Cuban on CNN saying that Kamala Harris has called him to get an idea of how to tax wealthy people/business owners.

LMFAO!

That's likely just so she can claim they consulted with business leaders in crafting the policy.

It's been tried before in a few places, all failures I think, so there are methods already out there.  Finding one that works, though, will be tricky.

Problem with public companies, like someone like Musk, is it could require them to sell a bunch of shares to pay a tax bill, eventually losing control as their ownership stake gets reduced every year.  Far more difficult for private companies - they'd have to find private equity or individual investors to buy equity, likely at a pretty steep discount. 

It also isn't really necessary.  The gubmit will get its "fair share" when you die.  So just eliminate the various loopholes and tax dodges that people might use to get around the inheritance tax.

Just a tired old deflection when the question arises "how will you pay for all this new spending you propose"?  Why, increase taxes on the rich, of course.

I'd also point out these promises not to raise taxes on people making less than $400k are probably BS.  You might be able to make that claim on a very simple return with no itemized deductions and exemptions.  AMT is entrapping more and more people every year.  And if you eliminate SALT, you'll be raising taxes on people making well less than $400k.

posted by gut

That's likely just so she can claim they consulted with business leaders in crafting the policy.

It's been tried before in a few places, all failures I think, so there are methods already out there.  Finding one that works, though, will be tricky.

Problem with public companies, like someone like Musk, is it could require them to sell a bunch of shares to pay a tax bill, eventually losing control as their ownership stake gets reduced every year.

I've always thought the same thing. Because Dems have projected that they want govt to be the ultimate company store, it's kind of hard to ignore. 

In the scenario here, they could swoop in with a placeholder to snatch up the majority?

Also, I'd like any Dem to describe how much money govt could take that would be it's "fair share". 

Our govt has proven time and again that it's not reliable in spending. They promise to do this, that and the other with it but then turn around and blow it all on war. I'm truly at the point where I think that after all these years, people who keep falling for this crap are just retards. 

It always reminds me of Lucy holding the football telling Charlie Brown that she will hold the ball still and then when he goes to kick she pulls it away and he falls on his back.

posted by CenterBHSFan

I've always thought the same thing. Because Dems have projected that they want govt to be the ultimate company store, it's kind of hard to ignore.

Progressives don't understand economics, or at least ignore it when it's inconvenient.

Govt nationalizing an industry likely results in one of two long-term outcomes: They become inefficient and uncompetitive and go out of business, or all the workers' wage gains (maybe 5-10% initially) are eventually eroded by waste and inefficiency.  If you're 5 years from retirement, the average worker might net $20k total after tax.  But if you're early in your career, you're probably worse-off in the long run.

There's just not an unlimited pile of money the 1% make in wages every year (and Dems would spend 10X that amount).  Their wealth accumulation is simply the power of compounded returns, probably doubling their wealth every 7 years or more.  So over 20 years, their investments grow 8-fold.  The myth is if the 1% made 1/10th of what they do, that everyone else would be able to grow wealth.  No, assuming they invested that $20k the $160k extra (ignoring inflation) would make retirement more comfortable, but that's not nearly as significant as it sounds

posted by gut

Progressives don't understand economics, or at least ignore it when it's inconvenient.

Govt nationalizing an industry likely results in one of two long-term outcomes: They become inefficient and uncompetitive and go out of business, or all the workers' wage gains (maybe 5-10% initially) are eventually eroded by waste and inefficiency.  If you're 5 years from retirement, the average worker might net $20k total after tax.  But if you're early in your career, you're probably worse-off in the long run.

There's just not an unlimited pile of money the 1% make in wages every year (and Dems would spend 10X that amount).  Their wealth accumulation is simply the power of compounded returns, probably doubling their wealth every 7 years or more.  So over 20 years, their investments grow 8-fold.  The myth is if the 1% made 1/10th of what they do, that everyone else would be able to grow wealth.  No, assuming they invested that $20k the $160k extra (ignoring inflation) would make retirement more comfortable, but that's not nearly as significant as it sounds

Sounds better than tariffs imo 

I've never been opposed to re-kickstarting our own industry. Why can't we build our own cars again? Why are we importing meds, can't we make our own? There is nothing wrong with having a robust industry/economy. 

posted by geeblock

Sounds better than tariffs imo 

They can't be too bad, since the Dems kept Trump's in place.