US 2024 Presidential Election

[Agema]

I figured as much. It's why I find you most reliable @Agema. Especially when it comes to things like this.

Thank you!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Your quote literally just proved my point. You could legally be killed for being gay in up until 1873 (and even after that, lynchings are a thing), and even after that being imprisoned for 20 years of hard labor isn't exactly a good deal. Also, you're the one who put the 200 year time-frame in place for this argument.

The last state in America ended that in 1873 so that means literally every other stated ended it BEFORE that. No one has answered my question that is; were there actually objective benefits of being married at that time? Now, you get a lot of things like tax breaks and sharing workplace insurance that probably wasn't a thing back then so there wouldn't be much reason to care if you got married or not. If anything, getting married was probably a hindrance as women were kinda trapped in many ways and getting divorced was also shunned by society. Why would gay people want to sign up for that at that time in history?

You guys don't read what I actually say. The 200 years was just pulled at random and talking about anything the could be possibly protected by the constitution and not gay marriage specifically.

There are times when protections are discovered and there are times when people/culture just change and the same people reading a sentence today will interpret it differently than people who read it 200 years ago.

---

I just want to this point because it's that important. The Constitution absolutely protects gay marriage.

That has never stopped some enterprising American elite from finding some way to get around the Constitution. In fact, this is celebrated. And it still happens in 2024

Because people keep voting the same people in power that enable the elite to do what they want.

You were specifically using this Constitutional protection as a reason the SCOTUS wouldn't overturn it. That only makes sense if you believe the protection is unarguable or unambiguous in the Constitution itself, and not dependent on changeable SCOTUS personal interpretation.



...Which you brought up to dispute the idea that it wasn't protected before. Remember? You said this solely to dispute that it wasn't protected for 226 years.



Even then you bent over backwards to avoid conceding the point! You could've just said, "thank you, I agree it wasn't protected before Obergefell". But stubborn pride demands endlessly quibbling.

I think if you bring up the argument on the objective benefits of being married, denying gay marriage would be against the Equal Protection Clause. If you say gay people should be able to get married because of abstract bullshit like "it's the foundation of family" or it's some kind of "dignity", then you will have a problem.

Again, for anything, you can't say something isn't protected if it's not challenged.

Because it's also not completely black and white either because it's also based on the quality of the argument. There's lots of variables. Hence, why I said I'll just assume they argued their case well and agree with you on that because I don't feel like researching the case because it's not actually important to our overall discussion, which is sometimes things are protected and have to be "discovered" via a challenge and sometimes it's just that society changes and they way someone read something 200 years ago is different than someone reading that same thing today.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, for anything, you can't say something isn't protected if it's not challenged.

But it was challenged.

And it wasn't protected, was it? That Constititional protection you said was clear and solid didn't stop the Minnesota Supreme Court banning it, or the SCOTUS backing them up.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

But it was challenged.

And it wasn't protected, was it? That Constititional protection you said was clear and solid didn't stop the Minnesota Supreme Court banning it, or the SCOTUS backing them up.

I didn't say it wasn't... and I didn't really care because my point wasn't just on gay marriage. Prior to the 70s when that case was, you can't say it wasn't protected because it wasn't challenged.

Now and 50 years ago are 2 different times and places. I literally just said this to you... read what I say.

I said that at the start because gay marriage is protected NOW and we were discussing if it could/would be overturned.

 

[BrawlMan]

Dumbasses

Right-wing influencers were duped to work for covert Russian operation, US says

An indictment alleges a media company linked to six conservative influencers — including Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson — was secretly funded by Russian state media employees.

apnews.com

Loading…

www.google.com

Good on you, Matt and Trey.

‘South Park’ to Return in 2025; Creators Are Skipping Election ‘on Purpose,’ Avoiding Trump Jokes and Also ‘Waiting for Paramount to Figure Their S— Out’

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are relieved not to air new "South Park" episodes during the 2024 presidential election because Trump jokes are tired.

variety.com

Loading…

www.npr.org

 

[Bedinsis]

Allan Lichtman has streamed how he predicts the election will go based on his 13 keys:


At the 27th minute he has filled it out entirely.

Irrespective of his prediction the best way to affect change is to vote, so those able to do so with a preference in the election I encourage to vote.

For those that saw the video, you know he said that there are keys that could still turn one way or the other. Well, today he posted what his current prediction is:


At 5:50 he makes his prediction.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump has stated that he wants to apply a 60% tariff to all Chinese imports and 10% tariffs to all other imports; which he claims will pay for all the tax cuts he wants to institute. He says this will make the American economy stronger. Of course, there's some problems with that: Tariffs are paid by American purchasers, not foreign exporters; they hit the poor much more severely than the rich; and other nations will of course institute their own retaliatory tariffs on American products.

In short: It's a wealth-distribution plan, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And Republicans can say "but we cut your taxes!".

 

[Silvanus]

I didn't say it wasn't...

You said "you have to challenge it..." to dispute when I said it wasn't protected for 226 years. What, you expect me to believe that was just a non-sequitur?

 

[tstorm823]

Trump has stated that he wants to apply a 60% tariff to all Chinese imports and 10% tariffs to all other imports; which he claims will pay for all the tax cuts he wants to institute. He says this will make the American economy stronger. Of course, there's some problems with that: Tariffs are paid by American purchasers, not foreign exporters; they hit the poor much more severely than the rich; and other nations will of course institute their own retaliatory tariffs on American products.

In short: It's a wealth-distribution plan, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And Republicans can say "but we cut your taxes!".

So when Trump imposes a tax that gets paid by American businesses, that tax hits the poor more severely than the rich. Do you take them same position on corporate income taxes?

 

[Gergar12]

The double down.


Edit: My bad this was already posted.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Trump has stated that he wants to apply a 60% tariff to all Chinese imports and 10% tariffs to all other imports; which he claims will pay for all the tax cuts he wants to institute. He says this will make the American economy stronger. Of course, there's some problems with that: Tariffs are paid by American purchasers, not foreign exporters; they hit the poor much more severely than the rich; and other nations will of course institute their own retaliatory tariffs on American products.

In short: It's a wealth-distribution plan, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And Republicans can say "but we cut your taxes!".

interestingly (I guess), a significant break from what right-wing economists tend to say. right-wing economists have tended to loudly proclaim that protectionism is bad (along with subsidies, price controls, state-owned enterprises, taxing and spending-- anything the government might do that has an economic impact other than enforce contracts). Of course, when a government does some among that list and it works undeniably well at delivering an industrial base with lots of exporting, they then call those parts 'cheating'; maybe South Korea has a bunch of electronics producers now, but gosh darn it, the world would have been better off if they just did agriculture and harvest whatever raw mineral resources are local like an obedient peripheral nation and left the industry and technology to the likes of the United States and Europe. Because specialization and gains from trade. (This is silly for various reasons.)

Anyway, what will protectionism do:

raise prices for local buyers on imported goods.

consumers suffer (they are the ones that ultimately pay the tax)
businesses that import things to then modify and sell become less competitive (especially if they intend to export their product)

but on the plus side there is incentive to develop or preserve local alternatives to the imported goods if possible

so protectionism has helped some places (like South Korea) industrialize. Notably, they also had a lot of government investment in the local industries they were protecting from foreign competition. it wasn't just tariffs.

whether or not protectionism could be useful in some way is heavily dependent on the details. it is very much like a (usually) milder form of sanctions against yourself. and that can range from bad to not that big a deal, or even in some cases it can allow a situation that seems better than what would have happened otherwise (e.g. if your country has the natural resources available and organizational capacity to seriously pursue autarky, then protectionism or sanctions can help motivate all domestic buyers and sellers to move in that direction). Somehow I don't see Trump leading the United States in that fashion in any serious manner. After all, what would be in it for him?

 

[Seanchaidh]

So when Trump imposes a tax that gets paid by American businesses, that tax hits the poor more severely than the rich. Do you take them same position on corporate income taxes?

there is a big difference between a corporate income tax (really a profit tax, i don't think there is any tax called a 'corporate income tax' that actually targets gross income instead of net income) and a tariff. it's like comparing income tax to an excise tax. actually, not just like, that's exactly what it is.

the relevant difference is that an excise tax has a burden that we can measure based on the price elasticity of demand of the good on which the tax is imposed. Based on data about sales quantities at different prices, we can actually with some rigor say that "this excise tax (or tariff, or the impact of a sales tax on some specific good) has a burden that falls X% on the seller and Y% on the buyer." Because goods have a profit-maximizing price that they can be sold at, and that profit-maximizing price will be after tax. If price elasticity of demand is low, then a much larger share of the burden falls on the buyer. But if it is high, it falls on the seller: if the quantity sold falls precipitously with an increase in price, the seller will not raise the price to pass the tax on because that just hurts the seller further.

You cannot do this with a corporate income tax. Indeed, there isn't really a way to "pass the tax on" to the consumer in such a case, because the profit-maximizing price is the same regardless of whether the profit tax is 0% or 99% or anywhere in between. (I will note that a profit tax of 99% would probably result in various forms of evasion, like 'hiring' shareholders to do nothing and receive a salary that constitutes what would have been profit: this still doesn't have an effect on the profit-maximizing price.)

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Trump has stated that he wants to apply a 60% tariff to all Chinese imports and 10% tariffs to all other imports; which he claims will pay for all the tax cuts he wants to institute. He says this will make the American economy stronger. Of course, there's some problems with that: Tariffs are paid by American purchasers, not foreign exporters; they hit the poor much more severely than the rich; and other nations will of course institute their own retaliatory tariffs on American products.

In short: It's a wealth-distribution plan, taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And Republicans can say "but we cut your taxes!".

Uhh... Literally democratic policy during covid.

You said "you have to challenge it..." to dispute when I said it wasn't protected for 226 years. What, you expect me to believe that was just a non-sequitur?

And the challenge was like 50 years ago, not 226 years ago. You cannot say just because something is not allowed that the constitution doesn't protect it (say handguns in Chicago). Our discussion isn't solely about gay marriage. That's why I said I don't care specifically about gay marriage. For some things A is true, for others B is true. I didn't really care if gay marriage was A or B.

The same logic works both ways. You can't say the constitution does not protect something if it's never been asked to/challenged to protect that said thing. Nor can the constitution protect anything when at any time a judge can say that it doesn't.

I absolutely can say it doesn't protect something if SCOTUS haven't weighed in and its banned. Before Obergefell, gay people could not marry in those districts. They did not have the right. It's not that the right just hadn't been "discovered". They could not do it, it was illegal.

Think about what you're saying here. You're saying that the Constitution protects something even if its banned, based on the potential that a judge in the future could-- if he felt like it-- decide to unban it.

I was asking you to prove it had been challenged before, I didn't really care. As I've said it could be A or B, I don't really care which one it is/was.

I was never talking about gay marriage specifically, I was talking generally about anything that can potentially be protected by the constitution. Hence, when you brought up gay marriage, I asked was it challenged before? My point was you can't say the constitution didn't protect it until it's at least been challenged and then denied.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And the challenge was like 50 years ago, not 226 years ago. You cannot say just because something is not allowed that the constitution doesn't protect it (say handguns in Chicago). Our discussion isn't solely about gay marriage. That's why I said I don't care specifically about gay marriage. For some things A is true, for others B is true. I didn't really care if gay marriage was A or B.

And you haven't explained how you expect gay marriage to have been challenged 200 years ago when just the admission of being gay would have gotten you killed or landed you with a prison sentence of 20 years hard labor.

Before you can even talk about gay marriage there would have to be an acceptance that just being gay isn't automatically a crime.

 

[tstorm823]

You cannot do this with a corporate income tax. Indeed, there isn't really a way to "pass the tax on" to the consumer in such a case, because the profit-maximizing price is the same regardless of whether the profit tax is 0% or 99% or anywhere in between. (I will note that a profit tax of 99% would probably result in various forms of evasion, like 'hiring' shareholders to do nothing and receive a salary that constitutes what would have been profit: this still doesn't have an effect on the profit-maximizing price.)

I mean, those salaries then get taxed anyway, that's not really much as far as "evasion" goes. That sort of behavior, optimizing the strategy of your business within the rules you must follow, is exactly what you want. If businesses don't follow where the tax structure incentivizes them to go, then there is no power in taxes to influence business practices in the first place, and something like a tariff becomes completely worthless.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, Phoenix is a guy who unironically believes that gays were never prohibited from marriage because a gay man could always marry a woman. I've had that argument with him already. Arguing this with him is beyond pointless.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I mean, those salaries then get taxed anyway, that's not really much as far as "evasion" goes. That sort of behavior, optimizing the strategy of your business within the rules you must follow, is exactly what you want. If businesses don't follow where the tax structure incentivizes them to go, then there is no power in taxes to influence business practices in the first place, and something like a tariff becomes completely worthless.

Salaries are not typically taxed at 99%.

Anyway, I sort of agree; it might be interesting to see the effect of a 100% corporate income tax, although I can imagine much more straightforward ways of abolishing profit.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Sometimes I think examples like this are produced intentionally in order to promote the idea that the media is biased against Republicans. Because really, that is an indefensible mischaracterization.

edit: because AP already deleted the tweet, I should explain that the headline was that JD Vance describes school shootings as a fact of life. Full stop.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Sometimes I think examples like this are produced intentionally in order to promote the idea that the media is biased against Republicans. Because really, that is an indefensible mischaracterization.

edit: because AP already deleted the tweet, I should explain that the headline was that JD Vance describes school shootings as a fact of life. Full stop.

And he said it while standing behind bullet-proof glass. Shootings are a fact of life...but not for him though.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And he said it while standing behind bullet-proof glass. Shootings are a fact of life...but not for him though.

apparently he thinks they would be. or wants us to think they would be but for the glass.