OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS - POTUS | TRUMP ELECTED 47th President

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 31K
  • Politics 
Only the first 40 hours. Tax on overtime being for the worker makes sense to me. I see no reason the government should get to keep taking and taking. Just let the workers have their whole check beyond the first 40. Why not? They may not work the same overtime if it will continue to be taxed, who knows. Let people have more of the pie if they are willing to work for it.
Again, you didn't address my questions. Why is some income sacred but not others? Why should a wage earner have some portion of income not really be income? Why should the ENTIRE income of a server be untaxed? These are ideas you're espousing and "Why not" isn't a reason.

What makes certain forms of income so inherently different that you're willing to not tax them which inherently requires taxing the income of others more heavily simply because....reasons?
 
I don't think I'll be using him for a foil anymore. He was useful because he presented a forum for me to point to a more realistic take on some things. Otoh, his posts have entered the theater of the absurd to such a degree that I don't see how he'd attract an audience I'm interested in reaching.
 
Again, you didn't address my questions. Why is some income sacred but not others? Why should a wage earner have some portion of income not really be income? Why should the ENTIRE income of a server be untaxed? These are ideas you're espousing and "Why not" isn't a reason.

What makes certain forms of income so inherently different that you're willing to not tax them which inherently requires taxing the income of others more heavily simply because....reasons?
Only certain portions of income are taxed for social security. Not taxing OT wages wouldn't be unprecedented.
 
Only certain portions of income are taxed for social security. Not taxing OT wages wouldn't be unprecedented.
Social security is not an income tax. Social security is not a tax at all.

And yet again, someone fails to make a case as to why overtime income is somehow sacrosanct and COMPLETELY IGNORES the one I have a much larger issue with which is totally untaxing the ENTIRE income of tipped earners.

As a person dead in the middle of the two groups that the curren GOP seems to feel is beyond Taxation (ultra wealthy and wage/tip earners), im kind of curious what you think my tax rate should be to cover the deficits.
 
Have lost all ability to comprehend? Late stage TDS will do that you know. You are starting to sound like Super.

"I want to drag their dead POLITICAL bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall.(LEGALLY, politically, and financially, of course)"

He isn't threatening to kill anyone. You claiming he is from his quote is pure bullshit. He wants to ruin their political and financial lives LEGALLY. And all the doj biden administration, and nyc DA employees who targeted him on trumped up charges deserve everything that's coming to them. You reap what you sew.

Trump was targeted by liberal politicians before the last election. Hopeful liberal DA candidates ran on platforms of "getting" trump. High ranking doj official just happens to go become some low level city prosecutor after the DA says he is going to drop the case so that he can help with it. The charges were dubious at best and had to resurrect some statute from the 1800s. Tried in a heavily democrat city where he is very unpopular. Yea, I'm throwing that "bullshit" right back in your face. What is going to really hurt you guys is when those convictions are overturned and you can't call him a felon anymore. One of the absolutely fucking great things about trump winning the election is that all of that weaponizing of the law the left did to go after him is going to be brought to light. I don't think trump gives out many passes this time. hillary should have been prosecuted along with numerous fbi officials but that was let go. I don't think it is going to happen this time. And I am as happy as a pig in shit about it. Your side started this shit with trump in the 2016 election. Kept it up after the 2020 election, but he is going to finish it.
No, you're the one who is spreading bullshit. In his original tweet he didn't add any qualifiers, he just said he wanted to kill them. And you're saying that it's OK to ruin people's lives. And Trump was convicted of many of those crimes - he wasn't "targeted", he was brought up on provable crimes and convicted by a jury. As I suspected, you're all about nothing but revenge and blind rage and vindictiveness. The fact that you're happy about a man threatening to kill people says it all about your views, which are shit. You will be perfectly happy seeing liberals thrown in jail and even killed. What a horrible way to go through life, but you do you.

ETA: There's no need to keep engaging with you as you clearly are willing to excuse anything that Trump or his minions do or say. Of all the conservatives who have popped up here since the election you strike me as being by far the most twisted and sick, and I mean that. Good luck with your debates with other liberals on this board you wouldn't mind seeing thrown in jail or having their lives ruined by the incoming administration for no good reason other than resentment, bitterness, and revenge.
 
Last edited:
Again, you didn't address my questions. Why is some income sacred but not others? Why should a wage earner have some portion of income not really be income? Why should the ENTIRE income of a server be untaxed? These are ideas you're espousing and "Why not" isn't a reason.

What makes certain forms of income so inherently different that you're willing to not tax them which inherently requires taxing the income of others more heavily simply because....reasons?


Good questions. To me, the "paying your fair share" stuff depends on your perspective. I think taxes are mostly reasonable, but if government can be funded and you can cut some unnecessary spending in the process, lowering taxes I think is good. I think people should be able to keep more of what they make. Now, I do think massive cuts with no offsetting spending cuts are problematic.

I don't know that any income is more sacred than any other, but I do like the idea of people have incentive to work harder and longer in order to get a larger piece of the pie.

As a public school teacher, there isn't really over time, but perhaps let me keep 100% of the local supplement and coaching stipend. That would be nice and not tax those items. But again, it's not not something that i feel super strongly about in either direction. Just not a top issue for me.
 
Two days out and I'm already pretty much done with the hot takes, the post mortems, and most definitely with the finger pointing. I got most things about this election wrong, but one thing I got right is that the result had been baked for months. I thought it was baked in Kamala's favor by 2-3 percentage points nationally and that would be enough. We now know it was about the same spread in the other direction. My mistake was thinking this was a movement election, when it was always, from Day 1, a change election. The incumbent party has never won when the incumbent's approval ratings were as low as Biden's have been for years. In hindsight, that's the only metric that really mattered.

How do we know this wasn't a movement election (and yes, that includes MAGA -- this election was not an approval of MAGA)? Because despite all the talk, the majority of Americans voted against pretty much all the movements.

  • Latinos said they wanted a secure border AND a path to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here. The majority of the country, and millions of Latinos, voted for the guy who has promised to round up and deport every person who's not here legally.
  • Arab Americans said they wanted an end to the war in Gaza. But the majority of Americans, and a substantial percentage of Arab Americans, voted for the guy who wants to build condos on Gaza's coastline after Israel finishes razing it.
  • Young Americans said they wanted student loan relief. But the majority of Americans, and a near majority of young people, voted for the guy who wants to destroy higher education and has no interest whatsoever in providing relief for student loans.
  • As much as I hate to say it, even the women and the men who support them who care so deeply about protecting their reproductive freedom did not really carry that through at the ballot box. Most groups of women, with a couple of notable exceptions, actually moved to Trump compared to pre-Dobbs elections.
  • Fiscal conservatives said they wanted lower spending and a smaller deficit. But the majority of Americans, and the VAST majority of fiscal conservatives, voted for the guy who economists almost unanimously agree will explode the deficit.
  • Most Americans said they wanted lower prices. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy whose tariff scheme will send inflation through the roof, and who made no effort whatsoever to lay out policies that would actually bring prices down (much less without destroying the economy).
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone younger. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who will be 82 at the end of his term, and whose cognitive decline is unmistakeable.
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone less divisive and more unifying. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who is without any doubt the most divisive and least inclusive politician, perhaps in American history, and at least in the last 165 years.
When it comes down to it, none of these movements were nearly as powerful as they made themselves out to be. All that mattered is that the great majority of Americans wanted change. They voted for change. And they don't really care what that change looks like as long as it's change. Now we get to see if the change they voted for is the change they wanted. I have a feeling the answer will be no. And if that's the case, Dems should be able to jump all over it over the next few years.

Last comment -- the one group I feel the most sympathy for is transgendered Americans. Two reasons for that. First, we'll never know, but I have a strong hunch that group voted overwhelmingly for Kamala. They're just too small in numbers to make a difference. Second, we must remember that the first prisoners in most German concentration camps were not Jews. They were Gypsies. On its face, that made no sense. The European Gypsy community was small and did not really affect anyone's daily life. But it was a small group and easily demonized with very few true supporters, and the German fascists therefore found it convenient to use the Gypsies as a test case for the social purification plan they were developing. So it seems to be with transgendered Americans. It's easy to say transgender rights are a losing issue politically, and therefore Dems should throw that community under the bus. From a real politik perspective, I can see the wisdom in that. But I worry the transgender community will prove to be the foot in the door, like the Gypsies, and for that reason alone, I hope we never forget what the right wing apparatus did to them in this election.
 
No, you're the one who is spreading bullshit. In his original tweet he didn't add any qualifiers, he just said he wanted to kill them. And you're saying that it's OK to ruin people's lives. And Trump was convicted of many of those crimes - he wasn't "targeted", he was brought up on provable crimes and convicted by a jury. As I suspected, you're all about nothing but revenge and blind rage and vindictiveness. The fact that you're happy about a man threatening to kill people says it all about your views, which are shit. You will be perfectly happy seeing liberals thrown in jail and even killed. What a horrible way to go through life, but you do you.

ETA: There's no need to keep engaging with you as you clearly are willing to excuse anything that Trump or his minions do or say. Of all the conservatives who have popped up here since the election you strike me as being by far the most twisted and sick, and I mean that. Good luck with your debates with other liberals on this board you wouldn't mind seeing thrown in jail or having their lives ruined by the incoming administration for no good reason other than resentment, bitterness, and revenge.
You apparently no nothing of the charges he was brought up on. He was targeted as no other person has ever been prosecuted for the same "crimes" even though the statute has been on the books since the 1800s. But since you are such a staunch supporter of all laws, I'm sure you support the law in DC that says it's illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary or in Utah where you can't have sex with an animal for profit but have at it if its not for profit. i mean those are laws just the same as the law trump broke. Somehow i believe you would find a way to compromise your principles for those. And I wholeheartedly believe that when you are targeted by political rivals in an effort to ruin your life that proving it and holding them accountable is justice. There is no blind rage. I have no rage. I have a desire for the truth to come out. Whatever it is.
 
Why are y’all feeding this troll? Read his posts. He’s just posting inflammatory shit to get a reaction. Nothing there in good faith. He’s just doing the digital version of putting Trump flags on his truck the day after the election and riding around blue neighborhoods blowing his horn.
 
Two days out and I'm already pretty much done with the hot takes, the post mortems, and most definitely with the finger pointing. I got most things about this election wrong, but one thing I got right is that the result had been baked for months. I thought it was baked in Kamala's favor by 2-3 percentage points nationally and that would be enough. We now know it was about the same spread in the other direction. My mistake was thinking this was a movement election, when it was always, from Day 1, a change election. The incumbent party has never won when the incumbent's approval ratings were as low as Biden's have been for years. In hindsight, that's the only metric that really mattered.

How do we know this wasn't a movement election (and yes, that includes MAGA -- this election was not an approval of MAGA)? Because despite all the talk, the majority of Americans voted against pretty much all the movements.

  • Latinos said they wanted a secure border AND a path to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here. The majority of the country, and millions of Latinos, voted for the guy who has promised to round up and deport every person who's not here legally.
  • Arab Americans said they wanted an end to the war in Gaza. But the majority of Americans, and a substantial percentage of Arab Americans, voted for the guy who wants to build condos on Gaza's coastline after Israel finishes razing it.
  • Young Americans said they wanted student loan relief. But the majority of Americans, and a near majority of young people, voted for the guy who wants to destroy higher education and has no interest whatsoever in providing relief for student loans.
  • As much as I hate to say it, even the women and the men who support them who care so deeply about protecting their reproductive freedom did not really carry that through at the ballot box. Most groups of women, with a couple of notable exceptions, actually moved to Trump compared to pre-Dobbs elections.
  • Fiscal conservatives said they wanted lower spending and a smaller deficit. But the majority of Americans, and the VAST majority of fiscal conservatives, voted for the guy who economists almost unanimously agree will explode the deficit.
  • Most Americans said they wanted lower prices. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy whose tariff scheme will send inflation through the roof, and who made no effort whatsoever to lay out policies that would actually bring prices down (much less without destroying the economy).
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone younger. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who will be 82 at the end of his term, and whose cognitive decline is unmistakeable.
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone less divisive and more unifying. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who is without any doubt the most divisive and least inclusive politician, perhaps in American history, and at least in the last 165 years.
When it comes down to it, none of these movements were nearly as powerful as they made themselves out to be. All that mattered is that the great majority of Americans wanted change. They voted for change. And they don't really care what that change looks like as long as it's change. Now we get to see if the change they voted for is the change they wanted. I have a feeling the answer will be no. And if that's the case, Dems should be able to jump all over it over the next few years.

Last comment -- the one group I feel the most sympathy for is transgendered Americans. Two reasons for that. First, we'll never know, but I have a strong hunch that group voted overwhelmingly for Kamala. They're just too small in numbers to make a difference. Second, we must remember that the first prisoners in most German concentration camps were not Jews. They were Gypsies. On its face, that made no sense. The European Gypsy community was small and did not really affect anyone's daily life. But it was a small group and easily demonized with very few true supporters, and the German fascists therefore found it convenient to use the Gypsies as a test case for the social purification plan they were developing. So it seems to be with transgendered Americans. It's easy to say transgender rights are a losing issue politically, and therefore Dems should throw that community under the bus. From a real politik perspective, I can see the wisdom in that. But I worry the transgender community will prove to be the foot in the door, like the Gypsies, and for that reason alone, I hope we never forget what the right wing apparatus did to them in this election.
might be the most accurate thing I have read by anyone since election night
 
There are cases pf people in state and city agencies rigging the system where high seniority workers are racking up $100,000 or more in overtime, both gaining more than their hourly income and padding their pension. There's more problems with this than whether or not to tax their overtime but some sort of limitation on where that ends needs to be considered.
This is frequently a big city phenomenon, but it happens everywhere. I know I guy who was a cop in a small Appalachian city. Didn’t finish college (maybe reached sophomore status). Worked odd jobs until 24 or so before going to the police academy. The local paper listed the 20 highest paid public employees every year. He was the 2nd or 3rd highest paid public employee in the county for like 5 years due to the volume of overtime he was getting. He was making more than 3x the starting pay of new officers and this was several years before he retired.
 
He would have lost just as decisively.

He should he decided at the midterm that he was too old to run.
This is true. As I said before. RBG syndrome and it cost not only the party, but the country dearly. Not being able to read the tea leaves is an insane amount of leadership failure. Not replacing garland at the first inkling of incompetence and hesitancy was also leadership failure. Not stuffing the Supreme Court or persecuting the Supreme Court justices was a leadership failure. At the end of the day, not recognizing that you can’t succeed when you haven’t shored up the decision makers is an epic failure. Hell, Even the republicans understand this concept when they secured the Supreme Court and other key justices. He righted the economy which is no small task, but that was somewhat like conquering new territory while leaving the left flank, the right flank, and the rear exposed to counter attack. But perhaps the ultimate failure, was to not curtail in some way the Russian disinformation campaign. Some way or another. They attacked us not with bombs but rather invaded us with the most creative and effective disinformation campaign in the history of mankind. And we did nothing about it. Nothing effective at any rate.

Biden failed by thinking that acting on historic principles would rejuvenate traditional politics, when in fact it just allowed the extreme right to solidify their position. He gave the other side too much credit thinking they wanted to be honorable . He did not move to crush them when he had the opportunities. He did not have the killer instinct at a time when we needed it. Most certainly there was an enemy within and he failed to lead us against that. He was no George Washington, no FDR, not even close. So a very good president he was, a great president he wasn’t.

(TBH this is not hindsight for me, I was feeling this angst all along)
 
Again, you didn't address my questions. Why is some income sacred but not others? Why should a wage earner have some portion of income not really be income? Why should the ENTIRE income of a server be untaxed? These are ideas you're espousing and "Why not" isn't a reason.

What makes certain forms of income so inherently different that you're willing to not tax them which inherently requires taxing the income of others more heavily simply because....reasons?
And will spawn all kinds of complexity and abuse. It’s just an insanely bad idea
 
I get it, but I think letting people keep their whole check past the first 40 hours is a good idea. Just my opinion. But I don't feel so strongly about it that I'd be upset if it didn't happen, I guess I'm pretty neutral on it. If it happens, fine, great. But if it doesn't also fine.
No taxes on OT pay would be exploited and abused like Hedge Fund managers did with capital gains tax. Mark it. It's dumb and helps those fixed income zilch.
 
No taxes on OT pay would be exploited and abused like Hedge Fund managers did with capital gains tax. Mark it. It's dumb and helps those fixed income zilch.

You might be right about the exploitation, definitely would be some interesting application of it. 100% would not benefit those with fixed income and those ho are salaried.
 
not going to start a new thread, so just will drop this here


This week, Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two – whose CEO, Strauss Zelnick, six months ago denied closing two studios for what could best be described as no apparent reason – confirmed that it closed those two studios. Kerbal Space Program 2 developer Intercept Games and Rollerdrome creator Roll7 Studios are no more. This follows new financial results in which Take-Two also announced the sale of its indie-focused Private Division label to an undisclosed buyer. Anyway, you will not be surprised to learn that Zelnick is thrilled that Trump just got reelected.

Speaking to Variety, Zelnick, whose management company received $43,742,000 in fees and stock options from Take-Two this fiscal year, said he anticipates a “more sensible” Federal Trade Commission under incoming President/fascist cosplayer Donald Trump.

"I think that the President-elect has made it very plain that he believes in reducing regulation,” Zelnick said. “I do believe that the FTC was misguided during President Biden’s term, and I do think that the FTC tried to impede some transactions that were beneficial for both the companies in question and the economy at large, and the FTC lost all those cases since. So I do think that, depending on what the specific topic is, deregulation can be a positive, and I am certainly looking forward to [a] more sensible FTC.”

That’s one way of putting it. Another might be “a toothless FTC,” or a return to a status quo that allowed gargantuan mergers to soar through unimpeded. Under FTC chair Lina Khan, nominated by Biden in 2021, the regulatory body fought to ban non-compete clauses, launched a lawsuit against Amazon, sued healthcare companies engaging in sketchy behavior, and blocked a record number of mergers in an attempt to stem the tide of monopoly power in the United States.
 
Two days out and I'm already pretty much done with the hot takes, the post mortems, and most definitely with the finger pointing. I got most things about this election wrong, but one thing I got right is that the result had been baked for months. I thought it was baked in Kamala's favor by 2-3 percentage points nationally and that would be enough. We now know it was about the same spread in the other direction. My mistake was thinking this was a movement election, when it was always, from Day 1, a change election. The incumbent party has never won when the incumbent's approval ratings were as low as Biden's have been for years. In hindsight, that's the only metric that really mattered.

How do we know this wasn't a movement election (and yes, that includes MAGA -- this election was not an approval of MAGA)? Because despite all the talk, the majority of Americans voted against pretty much all the movements.

  • Latinos said they wanted a secure border AND a path to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here. The majority of the country, and millions of Latinos, voted for the guy who has promised to round up and deport every person who's not here legally.
  • Arab Americans said they wanted an end to the war in Gaza. But the majority of Americans, and a substantial percentage of Arab Americans, voted for the guy who wants to build condos on Gaza's coastline after Israel finishes razing it.
  • Young Americans said they wanted student loan relief. But the majority of Americans, and a near majority of young people, voted for the guy who wants to destroy higher education and has no interest whatsoever in providing relief for student loans.
  • As much as I hate to say it, even the women and the men who support them who care so deeply about protecting their reproductive freedom did not really carry that through at the ballot box. Most groups of women, with a couple of notable exceptions, actually moved to Trump compared to pre-Dobbs elections.
  • Fiscal conservatives said they wanted lower spending and a smaller deficit. But the majority of Americans, and the VAST majority of fiscal conservatives, voted for the guy who economists almost unanimously agree will explode the deficit.
  • Most Americans said they wanted lower prices. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy whose tariff scheme will send inflation through the roof, and who made no effort whatsoever to lay out policies that would actually bring prices down (much less without destroying the economy).
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone younger. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who will be 82 at the end of his term, and whose cognitive decline is unmistakeable.
  • Most Americans said they wanted someone less divisive and more unifying. But the majority of Americans voted for the guy who is without any doubt the most divisive and least inclusive politician, perhaps in American history, and at least in the last 165 years.
When it comes down to it, none of these movements were nearly as powerful as they made themselves out to be. All that mattered is that the great majority of Americans wanted change. They voted for change. And they don't really care what that change looks like as long as it's change. Now we get to see if the change they voted for is the change they wanted. I have a feeling the answer will be no. And if that's the case, Dems should be able to jump all over it over the next few years.

Last comment -- the one group I feel the most sympathy for is transgendered Americans. Two reasons for that. First, we'll never know, but I have a strong hunch that group voted overwhelmingly for Kamala. They're just too small in numbers to make a difference. Second, we must remember that the first prisoners in most German concentration camps were not Jews. They were Gypsies. On its face, that made no sense. The European Gypsy community was small and did not really affect anyone's daily life. But it was a small group and easily demonized with very few true supporters, and the German fascists therefore found it convenient to use the Gypsies as a test case for the social purification plan they were developing. So it seems to be with transgendered Americans. It's easy to say transgender rights are a losing issue politically, and therefore Dems should throw that community under the bus. From a real politik perspective, I can see the wisdom in that. But I worry the transgender community will prove to be the foot in the door, like the Gypsies, and for that reason alone, I hope we never forget what the right wing apparatus did to them in this election.
Trans kid at my son's high school was bullied and committed suicide yesterday. My wife's trans patients are freaking out.

Here's my question: Trump is likely going to challenge birthright citizenship and my guess is SCOTUS will agree. If a person was born here to foreign parents, and gained citizenship on that basis, and then birthright citizenship is abolished, will they be deportable?
 
Trans kid at my son's high school was bullied and committed suicide yesterday. My wife's trans patients are freaking out.

Here's my question: Trump is likely going to challenge birthright citizenship and my guess is SCOTUS will agree. If a person was born here to foreign parents, and gained citizenship on that basis, and then birthright citizenship is abolished, will they be deportable?
Once the door is open to taking birth right citizenship away, then its a short step to taking citizenship away from any citizen. Hell no!

Not a direct answer, but I thought this point needs to be made.
 
Once the door is open to taking birth right citizenship away, then its a short step to taking citizenship away from any citizen. Hell no!

Not a direct answer, but I thought this point needs to be made.
Of course it needs to be made. This is why educated people abhor Trump. We know what's coming.
 
Back
Top