Trump is dominating the primaries. That doesn’t mean he’ll beat Biden

[proton]

2 hours ago, liddelljohn said:

If Tyrump wins a second term as president there will be a 2nd American Civil war

 

Laughable scaremongering 😄

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In January of 2020 the people in the 90-99% earnings class earned 2.9 times as much as the bottom 50%

In December of 2023, the people in the 90-99% earnings earned 4.3 times as much as the bottom 50%, that's like a 50% bump. The rich are defiantly getting richer. +

 

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989 (federalreserve.gov)

 

 

January 2020 was just before the pandemic.  Restrictions during the pandemic resulted in a huge financial boost for tech types and hit those in the service sector hard.  Now wages are increasing in the lower wage categories. 

 

Maybe the income inequality will come down in the future, but people with skills and education will continue to have the income advantage.  I don't see how to fix that other than implementing actual socialism.  I'm not keen on that idea.  How about you?

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Good point.  Chanting "Make China Great Again" would be seen as a criticism of China, the Communist Party and Xi.  By extension Make America Great Again is a criticism of the US and Trump's failure to accomplish his goal during his four years in office.

Yeah, it is criticism, and the left seems to want to incarcerate anyone that was protesting at the Capital. So China like the left. 

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Lots of MAGA types equate loyalty to Trump with patriotism.  They're the ones who think Trump groping a US flag with a dumb smirk on his face shows patriotism.

Opinion

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Build Back Better is not being used as a campaign slogan.

Oh yeah, it was so lame he had to change it to "Finish the Job", even lamer. 

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump supporters are constantly calling anyone who criticizes Trump left, far left or extreme left.

That has not been my experience. Every Trump supporter I know, and certainly every right of center pundit I know has criticized Trump one way or another, but they generally criticize him from the right, and no one seems to call them left as far as I know. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I've asked one of them to explain what he considers "left" and he offered no explanation.  I didn't think he could.

Given you're smart enough look down your nose at him, what do you consider "left", and what do you consider "right"? 

[Jingthing]

59 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

talking like hitler how?  haha, jeez...you got it bad, that TDS 

He is. It's Trump that has it bad and the world if he comes to power again.

 

 Nobody Cares That Trump Keeps Talking More Like a Nazi, Expert Warns (businessinsider.com)

Edited February 7 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, it is criticism, and the left seems to want to incarcerate anyone that was protesting at the Capital. So China like the left. 

Opinion

Oh yeah, it was so lame he had to change it to "Finish the Job", even lamer. 

That has not been my experience. Every Trump supporter I know, and certainly every right of center pundit I know has criticized Trump one way or another, but they generally criticize him from the right, and no one seems to call them left as far as I know. 

 

 

Given you're smart enough look down your nose at him, what do you consider "left", and what do you consider "right"? 

Just those who illegally stormed the Capitol.

 

No.  I've been accused of being unpatriotic and worse for criticizing Trump.

 

I have disliked campaign slogans and soundbites since "Morning in Amerca".  I see them as tricks to avoid important issues and discussions.

 

I forgot, Trump isn't rightwing enough for some people.  Weird.

 

I regard myself as a data driven centrist, but one who took an oath to defend the Constitution long ago and still take that oath seriously.  That apparently makes me "left" in the eyes of many.

 

Classical liberals wanted minimum government involvement in economic and personal affairs, classical conservatives wanted a Big Brother type government calling all the shots.  Until recently conservatives generally wanted to regulate morality and individual choices while treating business free to pursue profit, while liberals wanted to regulate businesses for social reasons while leaving individuals wide latitude in behavior  However current conservatives, if they can be called that, like Trump and DeSantis are keen on restricting business and individual behavior.

 

The terms "left" and "right" don't seem to have any real meaning, people use them as an accusation and an excuse to avoid intelligent discussion.  That's not surprising, many people dislike or are incapable of intelligent discussion.

 

 

[Felton Jarvis]

Even Trump's death would not change the fact that he has millions of supporters. Truly frightening.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

January 2020 was just before the pandemic.  Restrictions during the pandemic resulted in a huge financial boost for tech types and hit those in the service sector hard.  Now wages are increasing in the lower wage categories. 

 

Maybe the income inequality will come down in the future, but people with skills and education will continue to have the income advantage.  I don't see how to fix that other than implementing actual socialism.  I'm not keen on that idea.  How about you?

Actually, it's getting worse, from 2022 Q3 to 2023 Q4 the gap widened, and while the total wealth by the bottom 50% of earners went up, while every other wealth group went up much more. 

 

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 8.5%, or over 6 times as much as the bottom 50%

99-99.9% wealth increased 7.8% or over 5 times as much as the bottom 50%

90-99% wealth increased 5.7% or over 4 times as much as the bottom 50%

50-90% wealth increased 4.4% or over 3 times as much as the bottom 50%

Bottom 50% wealth increased 1.4%

 

Yep, the rich just keep getting richer, and the richer you are, the better "Bidennomics" works for you! 

 

"Finish the Job!" Joe, get 'em all on welfare. 

 

 

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989 (federalreserve.gov)

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Felton Jarvis said:

Even Trump's death would not change the fact that he has millions of supporters. Truly frightening.

Unfortunately the fascist maga movement is bigger than just that one horrible man. 

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Actually, it's getting worse, from 2022 Q3 to 2023 Q4 the gap widened, and while the total wealth by the bottom 50% of earners went up, while every other wealth group went up much more. 

 

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 8.5%, or over 6 times as much as the bottom 50%

99-99.9% wealth increased 7.8% or over 5 times as much as the bottom 50%

90-99% wealth increased 5.7% or over 4 times as much as the bottom 50%

50-90% wealth increased 4.4% or over 3 times as much as the bottom 50%

Bottom 50% wealth increased 1.4%

 

Yep, the rich just keep getting richer, and the richer you are, the better "Bidennomics" works for you! 

 

"Finish the Job!" Joe, get 'em all on welfare. 

 

 

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989 (federalreserve.gov)

President Biden wants higher taxes on the rich, which would reduce the gap.  I support that.  Republicans are opposed.  How about you?

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Just those who illegally stormed the Capitol.

 

No.  I've been accused of being unpatriotic and worse for criticizing Trump.

Not as bad as what Trump supporters are called

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I have disliked campaign slogans and soundbites since "Morning in Amerca".  I see them as tricks to avoid important issues and discussions.

So Biden's new slogan is a trick to avoid important issues and discussions. I agree. 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I forgot, Trump isn't rightwing enough for some people.  Weird.

What's weird about it? Biden is not far enough left for a lot of people. Is he too far left for you? 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I regard myself as a data driven centrist, but one who took an oath to defend the Constitution long ago and still take that oath seriously.  That apparently makes me "left" in the eyes of many.

That's not what makes you "left" in my eyes. 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Classical liberals wanted minimum government involvement in economic and personal affairs, classical conservatives wanted a Big Brother type government calling all the shots.  Until recently conservatives generally wanted to regulate morality and individual choices while treating business free to pursue profit, while liberals wanted to regulate businesses for social reasons while leaving individuals wide latitude in behavior  However current conservatives, if they can be called that, like Trump and DeSantis are keen on restricting business and individual behavior.

As I've stated previously, I'm a classical liberal, as are virtually all the conservatives I know. 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The terms "left" and "right" don't seem to have any real meaning, people use them as an accusation and an excuse to avoid intelligent discussion.  That's not surprising, many people dislike or are incapable of intelligent discussion.

So, you can't define them, but ridicule other that can't. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

President Biden wants higher taxes on the rich, which would reduce the gap.  I support that.  Republicans are opposed.  How about you?

Since you're "data driven", why not:

1. Define rich.

2. Tell me what taxes he wants to raise, and by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

But I'm guessing you don't know, and don't care, and that you're in the "So long as gap is smaller, they'd rather the poor poorer." camp. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Unfortunately the fascist maga movement is bigger than just that one horrible man. 

 

 

See Bruce? If you support Trump you're a fascist. 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not as bad as what Trump supporters are called

So Biden's new slogan is a trick to avoid important issues and discussions. I agree. 

What's weird about it? Biden is not far enough left for a lot of people. Is he too far left for you? 

That's not what makes you "left" in my eyes. 

As I've stated previously, I'm a classical liberal, as are virtually all the conservatives I know. 

So, you can't define them, but ridicule other that can't. 

It's difficult to say nice things about Qanon and Pizzagate fans.

 

I wasn't aware Biden has a campaign slogan. 

 

You'll have to give me your definition of left before I can answer.

 

What does make me left in your eyes?  Please be specific.

 

Really?  What do you think about tariffs and punishing companies for being "woke"?

 

I don't ridicule until they fail to define their terms, which they can't.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

See Bruce? If you support Trump you're a fascist. 

Not all Trump voters are maga.

I would say if you meet an American fascist, it's very probable they are maga, unless Trump isn't enough of a Nazi for their tastes.

Edited February 7 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Since you're "data driven", why not:

1. Define rich.

2. Tell me what taxes he wants to raise, and by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

But I'm guessing you don't know, and don't care, and that you're in the "So long as gap is smaller, they'd rather the poor poorer." camp. 

 

 

1.  Subjective term.  I'm not aware of an official definition.  But people who aren't satisfied with first class air travel and think they need a private jet definitely qualify.

 

2.  Here you go:  https://abcnews.go.com/Business/biden-set-propose-higher-taxes-rich-work/story?id=96950756

 

3.  Do i really need to explain the arithmetic involved?  A ratio is composed of a numerator and a denominator.  If you reduce the numerator while holding the denominator constant, the ratio, in this case the wealth multiple, goes down.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1.  Subjective term.  I'm not aware of an official definition.  But people who aren't satisfied with first class air travel and think they need a private jet definitely qualify.

It's not subjective in the context of the discussion. 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

2.  Here you go:  https://abcnews.go.com/Business/biden-set-propose-higher-taxes-rich-work/story?id=96950756

So you don't know, and (apparently) like I said, don't care. 

 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

3.  Do i really need to explain the arithmetic involved?  A ratio is composed of a numerator and a denominator.  If you reduce the numerator while holding the denominator constant, the ratio, in this case the wealth multiple, goes down.

No, I can handle the math, you need to explain how everything is constant. Either you're not as smart as I thought, or it's just another lazy dodge. 

 

I showed you clearly how the rich were getting richer and the gap was getting wider under Biden, and Mr. Data Drive's response was "tax the rich". That's pretty funny. 

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not all Trump voters are maga.

I would say if you meet an American fascist, it's very probable they are maga, unless Trump isn't enough of a Nazi for their tastes.

I doubt very much you even know what a fascist is. 

[Banana7]

Trump got some bad recently from the appeals court. He lost his immunity appeal. See attached judgement.

TrumpImmunityJudgement.pdf

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

It's not subjective in the context of the discussion. 

So you don't know, and (apparently) like I said, don't care. 

 

No, I can handle the math, you need to explain how everything is constant. Either you're not as smart as I thought, or it's just another lazy dodge. 

 

I showed you clearly how the rich were getting richer and the gap was getting wider under Biden, and Mr. Data Drive's response was "tax the rich". That's pretty funny. 

Of course it's subjective, there is no agreed upon definition of "rich" here or anywhere else that I'm aware of.  Any attempt I make to quantify the term will only open the discussion to subjective off-topic debate.

 

I read the article.  I thought it summarized the plan in reasonable detail.  Is there any part you don't understand?

 

Are you concerned that taxing the rich will significantly reduce the income of the lower 50%?  If so, don't tell me the economic conjecture upon which it is based (that would also open the discussion to off-topic debate), instead give me data from times and places in history when such tax increases had a measurable impact on the income of the lower group.  Don't make the examples ridiculous, find examples of recent times where prosperous, reasonably stable democracies raised taxes on the rich and that alone led to the poor getting poorer.

 

Tax the rich is always an option.  Do you have a better idea?

[Danderman123]

Increase the cap on taxable Social Security earnings.

 

Reduce Medicare eligibility to 62 years of age.

 

That would be a start.

 

Increase income tax rates for millionaires.

 

Reduce long term capital gains taxes.

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Increase the cap on taxable Social Security earnings.

 

Reduce Medicare eligibility to 62 years of age.

 

That would be a start.

 

Increase income tax rates for millionaires.

 

Reduce long term capital gains taxes.

I guess you did not read it either. 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Since you're "data driven", why not:

1. Define rich.

2. Tell me what taxes he wants to raise, and by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

But I'm guessing you don't know, and don't care, and that you're in the "So long as gap is smaller, they'd rather the poor poorer." camp. 

 

 

I suspect you’re safe from Biden’s tax proposals:

 

https://www.vox.com/money/23634085/biden-2024-budget-billionaire-tax-capital-gains

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Of course it's subjective, there is no agreed upon definition of "rich" here or anywhere else that I'm aware of.  Any attempt I make to quantify the term will only open the discussion to subjective off-topic debate.

 

I read the article.  I thought it summarized the plan in reasonable detail.  Is there any part you don't understand?

 

Are you concerned that taxing the rich will significantly reduce the income of the lower 50%?  If so, don't tell me the economic conjecture upon which it is based (that would also open the discussion to off-topic debate), instead give me data from times and places in history when such tax increases had a measurable impact on the income of the lower group.  Don't make the examples ridiculous, find examples of recent times where prosperous, reasonably stable democracies raised taxes on the rich and that alone led to the poor getting poorer.

 

Tax the rich is always an option.  Do you have a better idea?

 

Another weak dodge. 

 

You support Biden's plan to tax the rich and post a link. You claim to understand the plan, yet you:

1. Can't define rich in the context of the plan.

2. Can't say what taxes he wants to raise, and or by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

Typical

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suspect you’re safe from Biden’s tax proposals:

 

https://www.vox.com/money/23634085/biden-2024-budget-billionaire-tax-capital-gains

 

And I bet you, like Bruce or Dandy 

1. Can't define rich in the context of the plan.

2. Can't say what taxes he wants to raise, and or by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

Carry on

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I guess you did not read it either. 

Read what? I just gave my opinion on some easy steps to reduce income disparity in the US.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

And I bet you, like Bruce or Dandy 

1. Can't define rich in the context of the plan.

2. Can't say what taxes he wants to raise, and or by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

Carry on

You need to read the link.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And I bet you, like Bruce or Dandy 

1. Can't define rich in the context of the plan.

2. Can't say what taxes he wants to raise, and or by how much.

3. Explain how raising taxes will reduce the gap. 

 

Carry on

No worries, some of Trump's billionaire tax cuts will expire next year.

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No worries, some of Trump's billionaire tax cuts will expire next year.

Okay, let's recap:

Under the Biden Administration:

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 8.5%, or over 6 times as much as the bottom 50%

99-99.9% wealth increased 7.8% or over 5 times as much as the bottom 50%

90-99% wealth increased 5.7% or over 4 times as much as the bottom 50%

50-90% wealth increased 4.4% or over 3 times as much as the bottom 50%

Bottom 50% wealth increased 1.4%

 

Under the Trump Administration:

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 18%, or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
99-99.9% wealth increased 20% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
90-99% wealth increased 20% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
50-90% wealth increased 19% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
Bottom 50% wealth increased 62% or more than three times the rate of the other income classes

 

You guy crack me up. 

 

 

[frank83628]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He is. It's Trump that has it bad and the world if he comes to power again.

 

 Nobody Cares That Trump Keeps Talking More Like a Nazi, Expert Warns (businessinsider.com)

blah blah

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Okay, let's recap:

Under the Biden Administration:

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 8.5%, or over 6 times as much as the bottom 50%

99-99.9% wealth increased 7.8% or over 5 times as much as the bottom 50%

90-99% wealth increased 5.7% or over 4 times as much as the bottom 50%

50-90% wealth increased 4.4% or over 3 times as much as the bottom 50%

Bottom 50% wealth increased 1.4%

 

Under the Trump Administration:

Top 0.1 % wealth increased 18%, or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
99-99.9% wealth increased 20% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
90-99% wealth increased 20% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
50-90% wealth increased 19% or less than a third the rate the bottom 50% grew
Bottom 50% wealth increased 62% or more than three times the rate of the other income classes

 

You guy crack me up. 

 

 

You could be right, but let's see a link.