US Politics

Post Reply
GUEST_USER
Member
Reactions: 18
Posts: 295
Joined: 22 Sep 2018, 23:22

#1

Post by GUEST_USER »

It's that time again. In November, a President will be elected. Obama is running again for the Democratic party.

The Republicans still haven't decided on who they want to go with.
- The crazy Tea-Party people (Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann)
- The religious "conservatives" (Rick Santorum, Rick Perry)
- The Mormons (Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman)
- The devil in sheep's clothing (Newt Gingrich)

Looks like Romney will win the Iowa Caucus by roughly hundred votes - if that. Santorum put in a surprisingly strong second place finish. Those evangelical Christians in Iowa either don't like Mormons and/or don't like moderates...

Obama will likely win the general election again... but, who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

Originally posted on 2012-01-04 05:29:00

Guest
Reactions:

#2

Post by Guest »

Washington Post: Trump voters now blame him for the government shutdown | January 21, 2019
Recent polling indicates that the government shutdown has caused skittishness among parts of Trump's base, which has been one of the most enduring strengths of his presidency. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey, conducted Jan. 10 to Jan. 13, found that his net approval rating had dropped seven points since December.

One of the biggest declines came among suburban men, whose approval rating of Trump fell a net 18 percentage points, while support from evangelicals and Republicans dipped by smaller margins. Among men without a college degree, the downward change was seven points.

As Jeremiah Wilburn, a 45-year-old operating engineer, browsed the aisles at Walmart for a new pair of coveralls, he reflected on some of those shifts. Like many voters here, after siding with Barack Obama in two elections, he decided to gamble with Trump in 2016. And for most of the past two years, he was pleased. The economy was humming, jobs were flowing, and wages seemed stable.

Until now.

"I was doing fine with him up until this government shutdown," he said. "It's ridiculous. You're not getting the wall built for $5 billion. And Mexico is not paying for it, we all know that, too. Meanwhile, it's starting to turn people like me away."

He worries about the shutdown's effect on the economy. He's concerned about the impact on his brother, who works for the TSA in Florida.

To him, the shutdown standoff has also poked holes in Trump's ability to say he cares for the working class, given that 800,000 federal employees and an additional number of contractors are going without paychecks.

"You can't expect people to come to work without getting paid," Wilburn said. "If I were them, I certainly wouldn't come to work."

Guest
Reactions:

#3

Post by Guest »

(more in link) NY Times: Record Numbers of Americans Say They Care About Global Warming, Poll Finds | Jan 22, 2019
A record number of Americans understand that climate change is real, according to a new survey, and they are increasingly worried about its effects in their lives today.

Some 73 percent of Americans polled late last year said that global warming was happening, the report found, a jump of 10 percentage points from 2015 and three points since last March.

The rise in the number of Americans who say global warming is personally important to them was even sharper, jumping nine percentage points since March to 72 percent, another record over the past decade.

The survey is the latest in a series from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. It was conducted online in November and December by Ipsos, which polled 1,114 American adults.

The results suggest that climate change has moved out of the realm of the hypothetical for a wide majority of Americans, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale program.

"It is something that is activating an emotion in people, and that emotion is worry," he said. The survey found that 69 percent of Americans were "worried" about warming, an eight-point increase since March.

"People are beginning to understand that climate change is here in the United States, here in my state, in my community, affecting the people and places I care about, and now," Dr. Leiserowitz said. "This isn't happening in 50 years, 100 years from now."

Guest
Reactions:

#4

Post by Guest »

The Hill: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent | Jan 15, 2019
In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey ?ó?Ç?ö conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent ?ó?Ç?ö a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the concept.

Women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin. A majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. The proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it as well, 56 percent to 44 percent.

Increasing the highest tax bracket to 70 percent garners a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it.

Independent voters who were contacted backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin while Democratic ones favored it, 71 percent to 29 percent.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)  kicked off a debate within her party in a Jan. 6 interview with "60 Minutes" during which she said she would support setting the highest tax, which she said would kick in at individuals 10 millionth dollar of income, at 70 percent.

In her comments to the CBS show, Ocasio-Cortez referenced tax rates that had once been in place during the mid-20th century. During the 1950s and 60s, the wealthiest Americans were once taxed at a rate in excess of 90 percent.

"That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more," she said.

The latest Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted online among a demographically representative sample of registered voters and has a sampling margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Guest
Reactions:

#5

Post by Guest »

Last night, at the Riverside Church (where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "Beyond Vietnam" speech right before his assassination) in Harlem, Blackout for Human Rights hosted an event called "MLK Now". During this event, author and former Atlantic writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, had a sit down interview with AOC on stage where she talked about reparations to African Americans, American imperialism, and made statements like how she thinks a society that allows extreme poverty and billionaires to exist is immoral, democratic socialism, and how climate change needs to be tackled with the same urgency as a world war. She spoke about these issues with zero hesitation. I could be wrong. I would like to be wrong, but I don't think AOC and Kamala are...aligned in their beliefs and priorities. Around the 41st minute is when the subject of reparations comes up:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-QvoIfpxc
<!--QuoteBegin-AOC+<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1' id='QUOTE-WRAP'><tr><td>QUOTE (AOC)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBeginEconomically speaking, when we talk about the issue of reparations, people think about reparations as reparations for slavery. But, really, economically speaking, reparations are for the damage done by the New Deal and for redlining, because that is where we saw a compounding of the existing inequity from the legacy of slavery where we drew red lines around black communities and we said white communities will get home loans, and they'll get basic access to the bedrock of wealth in America. This will be your heirloom. We gave white America an heirloom that appreciated over time. That people still benefit from today. We did not give that to African Americans, Mexican communitiess, Puerto Rican communities, and so when we talk about investments today - first of all, people think of slavery as thought it was 500 years ago; as if people don't have grandparents, great grandparents, or great great grandparents that were impacted by this. It's as recent as the 1920s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. It's important to tell the story of where we've been and what others are doing as well. You look, for example, Germnay, and their attempts to try to heal after the Holocaust. Germany paid reparations, and they went through that process. They had that truth telling process. Until America tells the truth about itself, we are not going to heal.[/quote]

Guest
Reactions:

#6

Post by Guest »

Politico: Ocasio-Cortez and liberal freshmen join Oversight Committee | Jan 22, 2019
The House Oversight Committee is adding a group of progressive flamethrowers to its ranks.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) all won spots on the high-profile committee on Tuesday, two sources told POLITICO.

The new members, all of whom are freshmen except for Khanna, have been intensely critical of President Donald Trump, and their addition to the committee comes as Democrats have pledged to launch wide-ranging investigations into the president and his administration.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the chairman of the Oversight Committee, dismissed concerns about the outspoken freshman lawmakers.

"If I based the choices going on the committee based on what people said or their reputations or whatever, I probably wouldn't have a committee," Cummings told POLITICO. "I am excited ?ó?Ç?ö there were a lot of people that wanted to come on our committee."

The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which handles the committee rosters, sent a list of the new additions to Cummings, who said he approved it.

Rep. Dan Kildee, a member of the Democratic steering panel, said he was excited about the progressive picks.

"I want people to be aggressive, especially on that committee. It's good to have people who aren't afraid," the Michigan Democrat said in an interview. "They're going to be dealing with some pretty important stuff."

Guest
Reactions:

#7

Post by Guest »

Ocasio-Cortez and liberal freshmen join Oversight Committee | Jan 22, 2019
The House Oversight Committee is adding a group of progressive flamethrowers to its ranks.
This reminds me of something AOC says towards the end of her chat with Ta-Nehisi. About all of us needing to breathe fire in this point in time:
Te-Nahasi: Frederick Douglass has this quote that I think about all the time: "A man is worked on by what he works on. As he carves out his situation, the situation carves him out, too." And I wonder, given the level of toxicity and stupidity in which you engage with, does that...when you inhale that, even if to respond to it, how long can one do that for without it taking an effect?

AOC: I think that's an excellent question, and I do see my situation as evolving based on where I'm at and what I'm doing. I took - and take - my oath of office very seriously, and, so, I think that I was giving myself permission to be a little bit more out of pocket before my sweaing in. And now that I'm sworn in, it's that same thing - that carving, and that kind of symbiotic relationship between where we are and who we are and where we're in. I do think that it's - whether we speak about it or not, it doesn't mean that those forces aren't existing. You're breathing it in no matter what. So, the choice isn't what I'm breathing in, but what I'm exhaling. I think that the situations change. It doesn't mean that I do this forever. It doesn't mean that I act this way forever. But, right now, I think that with this administration, with the current circumstances, with the abdication of responsibility that we've seen from so many powerful people - even people who kind of abdicate that responsibility by calling themselves liberal or a democrat or whatever it is, I think that now, at least for this moment, I feel a need for all of us to breathe fire.
Get 'em.

Image

Guest
Reactions:

#8

Post by Guest »

Trump signed a bill that everyone will be reimbursed lost wages. The real problem is with these whiny people is they have no savings to fall back on. That is a problem Americans have been facing for decades. Instant gradification for fancy phones, eating out, expensive cars, vacations, etc. Economy & job market finally started looking up.

Me, I plan my revenge at the polls. No party is "good", I vote for the lesser evil.

Guest
Reactions:

#9

Post by Guest »

Ocasio is full of shit and a closet racist.

Guest
Reactions:

#10

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Trump signed a bill that everyone will be reimbursed lost wages. The real problem is with these whiny people is they have no savings to fall back on. That is a problem Americans have been facing for decades.&nbsp; Instant gradification for fancy phones, eating out, expensive cars, vacations, etc. Economy & job market finally started looking up.

Me, I plan my revenge at the polls. No party is "good", I vote for the lesser evil.
Voting accomplishes nothing. Choosing a lesser evil accomplishes nothing.

War is literally the only solution.

Guest
Reactions:

#11

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Trump signed a bill that everyone will be reimbursed lost wages. The real problem is with these whiny people is they have no savings to fall back on. That is a problem Americans have been facing for decades.&nbsp; Instant gradification for fancy phones, eating out, expensive cars, vacations, etc. Economy & job market finally started looking up.

Me, I plan my revenge at the polls. No party is "good", I vote for the lesser evil.
The Federal Reserve very recently released a "no shit" report that stated that at least 20% of millennials have been unable to partake in home ownership due to crushing student loan debt. It's not due to consumer habits. I can't speak to decades past, but, generally speaking, at least in the immediate aftermath of WW2, everything was a lot more affordable. Enough so, that a single person could support an entire household. That is now clearly not the case, especially after the 2008 financial crises. During the recovery, companies were only hiring on a part-time basis, with the legitimate explanation that economic conditions made it difficult to employ on a full-time basis, but to-date, a lot of companies have maintained this mode of operation to keep costs low and increase profits. With part time employees working under a threshold of hours, as an employer, you don't have to worry about being legally compelled to provide health insurance. Full-time employees also typically enjoy benefits like employer matching 401(k) contributions.

Guest
Reactions:

#12

Post by Guest »


Guest
Reactions:

#13

Post by Guest »



Guest
Reactions:

#15

Post by Guest »

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V9H88Ejzno

AOC gets most of the attention, but Rashida got thrown out of a Trump event for heckling three years ago.She smiled as they threw her out. She's a badass, and now she's on a committee that has subpoena power.

Pelosi: "Release the hounds."

Guest
Reactions:

#16

Post by Guest »


Guest
Reactions:

#17

Post by Guest »

Speaking of Bob Marley, of all the House freshmen, Elijah Cummings (House Oversight Committee chair) clearly selected members who want all the smoke. For Pressley, impeachment of Drumpf is near the top of her to-do list. :popcorn:

https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1...911395495198720

Image

Guest
Reactions:

#18

Post by Guest »

You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?

Guest
Reactions:

#19

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?
The House is a separate, coequal branch. The President forcing his way in uninvited is absolutely outside of his powers. The House would have to vote to let the Executive in.

Guest
Reactions:

#20

Post by Guest »

"Individual 1" is totally going to be the name of some Netflix documentary or movie, isn't it?

Guest
Reactions:

#21

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?
The House is a separate, coequal branch. The President forcing his way in uninvited is absolutely outside of his powers. The House would have to vote to let the Executive in.
Thanks for that explanation. Okay, so, hypothetically if there was a vote in the House and it was decided that Trump would not give a speech at SOTU, could he still force his way in?

User avatar
Isotopes
Member
Reactions: 33
Posts: 602
Joined: 06 Jan 2019, 13:43

#22

Post by Isotopes »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?
The House is a separate, coequal branch. The President forcing his way in uninvited is absolutely outside of his powers. The House would have to vote to let the Executive in.
Thanks for that explanation. Okay, so, hypothetically if there was a vote in the House and it was decided that Trump would not give a speech at SOTU, could he still force his way in?
I suspected he would ignore long-standing protocol and try to go in and give his speech. The House is governed by a lot of parliamentary rules, including who has the right to speak on the floor. You can't just show up and start speaking--you have to be invited if you aren't a member of the house.

So Trump will try to smash this norm along with all the other norms he's destroyed. The question is whether or not Pelosi will allow him to do it. As has been pointed out, the House is part of a co-equal branch with the president.

Personally, I hope she has the Sgt. at Arms of the House escort Trump out if he tries. Or shutting off the lights and the cameras. She has the power to do both. If she indicates she'll go there, he'd be better off holding a big rally in a red state and calling it the SOTU. That sets a very bad precedent, however, as it would not be the SOTU as defined by the constitution and tradition.

Trump doesn't care about any of this shit, however. He's doing all this for Putin.

Guest
Reactions:

#23

Post by Guest »

Isotopes wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?
The House is a separate, coequal branch. The President forcing his way in uninvited is absolutely outside of his powers. The House would have to vote to let the Executive in.
Thanks for that explanation. Okay, so, hypothetically if there was a vote in the House and it was decided that Trump would not give a speech at SOTU, could he still force his way in?
I suspected he would ignore long-standing protocol and try to go in and give his speech. The House is governed by a lot of parliamentary rules, including who has the right to speak on the floor. You can't just show up and start speaking--you have to be invited if you aren't a member of the house.

So Trump will try to smash this norm along with all the other norms he's destroyed. The question is whether or not Pelosi will allow him to do it. As has been pointed out, the House is part of a co-equal branch with the president.

Personally, I hope she has the Sgt. at Arms of the House escort Trump out if he tries. Or shutting off the lights and the cameras. She has the power to do both. If she indicates she'll go there, he'd be better off holding a big rally in a red state and calling it the SOTU. That sets a very bad precedent, however, as it would not be the SOTU as defined by the constitution and tradition.

Trump doesn't care about any of this shit, however. He's doing all this for Putin.
Thank you so much for explaining this, both of you!

Guest
Reactions:

#24

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:You guys, Trump has rejected Nancy's command and says he'll deliver the State of the Union address regardless of what she has said. Can he do that?
The House is a separate, coequal branch. The President forcing his way in uninvited is absolutely outside of his powers. The House would have to vote to let the Executive in.
Thanks for that explanation. Okay, so, hypothetically if there was a vote in the House and it was decided that Trump would not give a speech at SOTU, could he still force his way in?
Image



Guest
Reactions:

#27

Post by Guest »


Guest
Reactions:

#28

Post by Guest »

What's McTurtle's endgame?
He is a million times more corrupt and evil than Trump.

Guest
Reactions:

#29

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:What's McTurtle's endgame?
He is a million times more corrupt and evil than Trump.
Protect vulnerable republicans in 2020 congressional races? If he doesn't put any bills to vote, these republicans won't have to come out on record for either supporting the shutdown or going against Trump. McConnell's approval rating is in the shitter anyway.

The Hill: Poll shows 25 percent view McConnell favorably, lowest among leaders in survey | Jan 22, 2019

Guest
Reactions:

#30

Post by Guest »

Washington Post: Trump's approval sinks to 34% in newest AP-NORC poll | Jan 23, 2019
WASHINGTON ?ó?Ç?ö A strong majority of Americans blame President Donald Trump for the record-long government shutdown and reject his primary rationale for a border wall, according to a new poll that shows the turmoil in Washington is dragging his approval rating to its lowest level in more than a year.

Overall, 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump's job performance in a survey conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That's down from 42 percent a month earlier and nears the lowest mark of his two-year presidency. The president's approval among Republicans remains close to 80 percent, but his standing with independents is among its lowest points of his time in office.

Sixty percent of Americans say Trump bears a great deal of responsibility for the shutdown. About a third place the same amount of blame on congressional Democrats (31 percent) or Republicans (36 percent).

Overall, 49 percent of Americans oppose the plan to build a massive wall along the Mexican border; 36 percent of the nation is in favor. Opinions fall largely along ideological lines, with 8 in 10 Democrats opposing the wall and nearly 8 in 10 Republicans supporting it.

"Trump is responsible for this," said poll respondent Lloyd Rabalais, a federal contractor from Slidell, Louisiana, who's not affiliated with either political party.

Guest
Reactions:

#31

Post by Guest »

The Hill: McConnell blocks bill to reopen most of government | Jan 23, 2019
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked legislation on Wednesday that would reopen most of the government currently closed during the partial shutdown.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) went to the Senate floor to ask for consent to take up the House-passed bill that would fund every agency and department impacted by the partial shutdown, except the Department of Homeland Security, through Sept. 30.

McConnell, however, objected. It's the fourth time he's blocked the bill to reopen most of government. He has also blocked, as recently as Tuesday, a House-passed bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 8.

Democrats have been coming to the floor on a near-daily basis while the Senate is in session to try to bring up the House package, even though the GOP leader has said he will not allow them to come to the Senate floor.

Under Senate rules any one senator can try to pass a bill, but any one senator can also object.

Guest
Reactions:

#32

Post by Guest »

Is it unusual for a freshman legislator to land two committee seats (House Oversight & Financial Services) as is the case for AOC?

As for her voting against the latest House bill to re-open the government. Well...she did campaign to abolish ICE, and apparently she caught flack from some of her constituents for voting for an earlier CR (continuing resolution) bill that included funding to the Dept of Homeland Security, which ICE is housed in. IDK. At first I chalked up her "no" vote to being a Justice Democrat, but Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, and Ra?â??l Grijalva are all also JD's, but voted "yes". In any case, this is the only CR she voted "nay" for. All the others, she voted in favor for.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/180416/alex...a-ocasio-cortez

Guest
Reactions:

#33

Post by Guest »

CNBC: The super rich at Davos are scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposal to hike taxes on the wealthy | Jan 22, 2019

A popular topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year is AOC...because she's got some billionaires shook. As this Vanity Fair article put it: more than a global recession, the US/China trade war, and uncertainty in geopolitical events like Brexit, their top concern is the return of the marginal tax rate (70-90%) of pre-Reagan republican administrations, namely Eisenhower and Nixon. I remember seeing a clip last year of Meghan McCain having a meltdown on The View at the thought of "socialists" like Alexandria coming after her trust fund:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW32S19vp0k

Guest
Reactions:

#34

Post by Guest »

AOC was on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" on Monday (01/21), and her appearance gave Colbert his best ratings for a Monday ever. In the link to Pt. II below, she explains how marginal tax rates work to millions of people.

Vulture: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gives Colbert Show Massive Ratings Bump | Jan 22, 2019

Image

Pt. I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f4gMQd_9Hs
Pt. II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZeWDEBzoc

Guest
Reactions:

#35

Post by Guest »

Alexandria is voting Republican ö

Guest
Reactions:

#36

Post by Guest »

She's even in a documentary, y'all. It's set to debut at Sundance tomorrow. :lol:

Hollywood Reporter: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Movie: D.C.'s Bomb-Throwing New Star Seizes the Sundance Spotlight Jan 23, 2019

Image

Trailer: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/949597...e-a-documentary

Guest
Reactions:

#37

Post by Guest »

Stacey Abrams should've won

Guest
Reactions:

#38

Post by Guest »

Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren to propose new 'wealth tax' on very rich Americans, economist says | Jan 24, 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new "wealth tax" on Americans with more than &#036;50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation's soaring wealth inequality.

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two left-leaning economists at the University of California, Berkeley, have been advising Warren on a proposal to levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with assets above &#036;50 million, as well as a 3 percent wealth tax on those who have more than &#036;1 billion, according to Saez.

The wealth tax would raise &#036;2.75 trillion over a ten-year period from about 75,000 families, or less than 0.1 percent of U.S. households, Saez said.

Guest
Reactions:

#39

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren to propose new 'wealth tax' on very rich Americans, economist says | Jan 24, 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new "wealth tax" on Americans with more than &#036;50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation's soaring wealth inequality.

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two left-leaning economists at the University of California, Berkeley, have been advising Warren on a proposal to levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with assets above &#036;50 million, as well as a 3 percent wealth tax on those who have more than &#036;1 billion, according to Saez.

The wealth tax would raise &#036;2.75 trillion over a ten-year period from about 75,000 families, or less than 0.1 percent of U.S. households, Saez said.
She can propose it till hell freezes over but it ain't gonna pass at this moment. Some of these proposals are just faux bills so they can get on the campaign trail with something something hard on wealthy booo rich people.

Guest
Reactions:

#40

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:She's even in a documentary, y'all. It's set to debut at Sundance tomorrow. :lol:

Hollywood Reporter: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Movie: D.C.'s Bomb-Throwing New Star Seizes the Sundance Spotlight Jan 23, 2019

Image

Trailer: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/949597...e-a-documentary
She has to run to the nearest camera before Bernie does!

Guest
Reactions:

#41

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Stacey Abrams should've won
She'll be back, they had to cheat and steal it from her.

Guest
Reactions:

#42

Post by Guest »

I really think that really soon there's going to be a political or civil war revolution where all the money is taken away from billionaires and given to other people. democrats are stupid they want to take a lot of money away from people who are middle class or have a few million and some money away from people who have like 300 million, when they should keep the tax brackets the same as they are now for those people and take 95% of money away from billionaires. they would win in a Landslide and it doesn't matter what anyone donates to them because there's not enough billionaires to stop that.

Guest
Reactions:

#43

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:I really think that really soon there's going to be a political or civil war revolution where all the money is taken away from billionaires and given to other people. democrats are stupid they want to take a lot of money away from people who are middle class or have a few million and some money away from people who have like 300 million, when they should keep the tax brackets the same as they are now for those people and take 95% of money away from billionaires. they would win in a Landslide and it doesn't matter what anyone donates to them because there's not enough billionaires to stop that.
Also, marginal taxation is not a new idea. 50-90% taxation after a certain multi million threshold is passed was the tax law of the land under multiple republican administrations.

Guest
Reactions:

#44

Post by Guest »

Surprised this wasn't posted. *fans self*

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1088831381638123520

Image

Guest
Reactions:

#45

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren to propose new 'wealth tax' on very rich Americans, economist says | Jan 24, 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new "wealth tax" on Americans with more than &#036;50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation's soaring wealth inequality.

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two left-leaning economists at the University of California, Berkeley, have been advising Warren on a proposal to levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with assets above &#036;50 million, as well as a 3 percent wealth tax on those who have more than &#036;1 billion, according to Saez.

The wealth tax would raise &#036;2.75 trillion over a ten-year period from about 75,000 families, or less than 0.1 percent of U.S. households, Saez said.
but why settle for 2 percent they should take away at least 15 the top top bracket would never even feel it anywhere.

Guest
Reactions:

#46

Post by Guest »

This orange cheeto bastard is just making shit up. God I hate him

Guest
Reactions:

#47

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:CNBC: The super rich at Davos are scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposal to hike taxes on the wealthy | Jan 22, 2019

A popular topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year is AOC...because she's got some billionaires shook. As this Vanity Fair article put it: more than a global recession, the US/China trade war, and uncertainty in geopolitical events like Brexit, their top concern is the return of the marginal tax rate (70-90%) of pre-Reagan republican administrations, namely Eisenhower and Nixon
SHOOK.

https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1090259634861105152
https://www.thedailybeast.com/howard-schult...ia=twitter_page


Image

Guest
Reactions:

#48

Post by Guest »

@irin
Hell of a lead image on @nytimes app right now
10:33 PM - 27 Jan 2019

Image

Guest
Reactions:

#49

Post by Guest »


Guest
Reactions:

#50

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:She's even in a documentary, y'all. It's set to debut at Sundance tomorrow. :lol:

Hollywood Reporter: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Movie: D.C.'s Bomb-Throwing New Star Seizes the Sundance Spotlight Jan 23, 2019

Trailer: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/949597...e-a-documentary
Deadline: Sundance Festival Favorite 'Knock Down The House' Sold For Record &#036;10 Million | Feb 6, 2019
Deadline broke news last Wednesday that Netflix had won a heated auction for the Sundance documentary Knock Down the House, but it wasn't immediately clear how much the picture sold for. I can reveal that Netflix paid &#036;10 million for worldwide rights to a film that yesterday received Sundance's coveted Festival Favorite Award.

By my count, that makes Knock Down the House the biggest documentary sale ever brokered at a film festival.

Sources said that nearly every distributor chased deal broker Cinetic Media for Knock Down the House including NEON, Focus, Hulu and Amazon. Some traditional theatrical distributors said that price tag would be tough to meet because, given the P&A required, the film would have to gross &#036;75 million worldwide to be profitable.

Amazon, meanwhile, also didn't seem a good fit because the film's galvanizing star, Ocasio-Cortez a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and the youngest elected member of the U.S. Congress at age 29 ?ó?Ç?ö has been critical of the sweetheart deal Amazon made to build headquarters in New York, near her 14th District.

Robin Blotnick co-wrote Knock Down the House with Lears and they produced the docu with Sarah Olson.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: diotima1, Google [Bot] and 622 guests