• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blader

Member
PBY said:
The "it" is important, because unless I've missed a story (and someone will chime in here), there really isn't solid evidence of direct collusion. However, there is evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election, and possible shady actions by Manafort, Page and Flynn.

Obstruction is a different matter, theres more there imo.
Click to expand...

I think the part where the president tells the former FBI director to obstruct justice is definitely going to come up at some point!

NeoXChaos said:
Oh look another Hillary and Bernie thread with the usual suspects. We never left 2016.
Click to expand...

There were some points in that article I thought were interesting and worth talking about, but I knew exactly what the thread was going to become.
 
T

tedrotheredro

Member
Dangansona said:
What do you say to someone who says there is no evidence of Trump and Russia and that he doesn't trust the governmental agencies saying it happened?
Click to expand...

Let Mueller finish the investigation, then we can talk. Highly classified evidence should remain confidential until the investigation is complete. Maybe not everything leaks when it's shared with a very limited number of people?

Then ask them why Trump fired Comey, a Republican who was investigating his campaign but had made no conclusions. Together with Mueller, the top criminal investigators in the country over the past 13 years have had their integrity called into question by Donald Trump, the guy who's never said a bad thing about Russia.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Ogodei said:
The payroll tax is more politically acceptable in the short term, i'd argue. The employer tax is paid by your employer, even though that de facto eats away at your salary because a higher tax means lower salary because the employer doesn't want to pay more overall.

*However*, since the employer also pays the lion's share of the health benefits, a single-payer system funded mostly by payroll tax and partially by a negligible tax hike could be engineered to be a net zero for median earners.

Let's take an average-ish earner of $36000, or $3000/mo (for easy math). 15% payroll tax, or $450, and a $750/mo employer share insurance premium, with a $60/mo employee premium share (2% of income). Overall that means your employer pays 40% more than what you see on your paycheck. So a payroll tax hike of another 15% would actually save the employer money in this case, and *maybe* pass through to the employee as new income. Meanwhile, a 1% income tax increase at all brackets would, for this earner, be $30/mo back in their pocket, assuming that the premium went away.

You'd make up money on the fact that it would scale at the higher end, so your C-suite executive making $30,000/mo, but whose insurance would still only cost the company $750/mo, now costs the company $9,000/mo in payroll instead of $5,250 for payroll plus insurance, and instead of a $60/month premium the high earner's paying $300/mo in new income taxes, but they can easily afford that, and because the premium goes away it's really only a $240 hit.

A low-wage earner of $24,000 a year would save the company money outright. $1,050/mo on this employee (for 15% payroll tax and $750 monthly premium), and $60/mo out of their take-home pay, suddenly becomes $600/mo in payroll taxes and $20/mo in new income taxes.

Essentially middle America would zero out, poor people would see reduced burdens, rich people would see higher burdens, but only people making above-median pay.

Obviously this is all napkin math, but you could set your payroll tax rate to that sweet spot where an average earner wouldn't notice the difference.
Click to expand...

This makes sense but IMO represents why I think it will be a tough sell. People seem to forget, but healthcare as a right was above 50% just before obama too.
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
Fenderputty said:
This makes sense but IMO represents why I think it will be a tough sell. People seem to forget, but healthcare as a right was above 50% just before obama too.
Click to expand...

Payroll taxes are an easier sell. While technically it is a tax on a residents income, it is hidden from the resident and they do not actually see it. So earners go on thinking they have not gotten a raise in x amount of years while in real terms they have been getting a raise.

A payroll tax is much more politically palatable than a income tax. Even though they are only different in presentation and not economic affect.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Macho Madness said:
Raising taxes on rich people is popular as hell. Run on that. Tell people what these greedy fucks are going to pay for.
Click to expand...


A tax hike on the rich in exchange for helping poor people is asking for political trouble. Why waste energy on it?

Instead of wasting life on that....poor people should demand a tax system that cuts them some slack at the state and local level. Moreover, they should demand more direct spending on things like education and health services.

Also, people should encourage the gov't to continue to rely predominantly on treasuries ($19,844,623,881,256.94 and counting) to get things done. According to Trump, the economy is doing great and the media isn't talking about that.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
No wonder people who watch Fox News clutch their pearls in fear on a daily basis. Their talking heads and guest are saying NK is about to knock on their doors and toss a nuclear bomb at them, and that the US should allow Japan and South Korea to have nukes so that NK can be, and I quote, turned into a "burnt pop tart".
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Ogodei said:
The payroll tax is more politically acceptable in the short term, i'd argue. The employer tax is paid by your employer, even though that de facto eats away at your salary because a higher tax means lower salary because the employer doesn't want to pay more overall.

*However*, since the employer also pays the lion's share of the health benefits, a single-payer system funded mostly by payroll tax and partially by a negligible tax hike could be engineered to be a net zero for median earners.

Let's take an average-ish earner of $36000, or $3000/mo (for easy math). 15% payroll tax, or $450, and a $750/mo employer share insurance premium, with a $60/mo employee premium share (2% of income). Overall that means your employer pays 40% more than what you see on your paycheck. So a payroll tax hike of another 15% would actually save the employer money in this case, and *maybe* pass through to the employee as new income. Meanwhile, a 1% income tax increase at all brackets would, for this earner, be $30/mo back in their pocket, assuming that the premium went away.

You'd make up money on the fact that it would scale at the higher end, so your C-suite executive making $30,000/mo, but whose insurance would still only cost the company $750/mo, now costs the company $9,000/mo in payroll instead of $5,250 for payroll plus insurance, and instead of a $60/month premium the high earner's paying $300/mo in new income taxes, but they can easily afford that, and because the premium goes away it's really only a $240 hit.

A low-wage earner of $24,000 a year would save the company money outright. $1,050/mo on this employee (for 15% payroll tax and $750 monthly premium), and $60/mo out of their take-home pay, suddenly becomes $600/mo in payroll taxes and $20/mo in new income taxes.

Essentially middle America would zero out, poor people would see reduced burdens, rich people would see higher burdens, but only people making above-median pay.

Obviously this is all napkin math, but you could set your payroll tax rate to that sweet spot where an average earner wouldn't notice the difference.
Click to expand...

Talk wonky to me, Ogodei.
 
UberTag

UberTag

Member
Wilsongt said:
No wonder people who watch Fox News clutch their pearls in fear on a daily basis. Their talking heads and guest are saying NK is about to knock on their doors and toss a nuclear bomb at them, and that the US should allow Japan and South Korea to have nukes so that NK can be, and I quote, turned into a "burnt pop tart".
Click to expand...
Right-wing fear-mongering propaganda is a mistake.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
UberTag said:
Right-wing fear-mongering propaganda is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think there'd be a point where even the people who instigated all of this (Gingrich, Limbaugh, Rove, etc) would realize the mistake they made, except they all seem content to just fucking roll with it.

Like yup the game plan of obstructing Obama and Clinton throughout all of their presidencies was to elect Trump who's an idiot and can't do anything, great strategy guys.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I'd like to think there'd be a point where even the people who instigated all of this (Gingrich, Limbaugh, Rove, etc) would realize the mistake they made, except they all seem content to just fucking roll with it.

Like yup the game plan of obstructing Obama and Clinton throughout all of their presidencies was to elect Trump who's an idiot and can't do anything, great strategy guys.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Fun story about Rush: my grandparents babysat me for many years, and they always hate-listened to Rush Limbaugh. One day, perhaps during the Clinton impeachment trial, my grandfather responded to some incendiary comment by calling Rush a stupid dinosaur. For years afterward I assumed he looked like Barney, the only dinosaur I'd ever seen at that point.

When I realized the truth, I apologized profusely to Barney.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Roland_Gunner said:
Claire Mccaskill got some really good news today as her strongest potential opponent decided to not run. This is a big shock as Ann Wagner had been penciled in as the GOP candidate by pretty much everyone.

http://kcur.org/post/wagner-wont-ch...-instead-will-seek-re-election-house#stream/0
Click to expand...

She announced the other day she wasn't and it's a really big blow for a few reasons:

1. She obviously had been planning to run. She was raising money like someone running for Senate even while not running (see: Sinema, Kyrsten)

2. She was the chair of the MO GOP and co-chair of the RNC. She probably understands the political climate better than most.

So far, the only legit challengers that the NRSC has recruited against the Trump Dems are Jenkins in WV (who will have a crowded primary) and Mandel in OH. I don't think they even want Mandel to run but he's pretty much cleared the field/no one else wants to run agknst Sherrod so they'd rather run for governor instead.

Now, Missouri has a really great GOP bench and McCaskill will always have a challenging race, but this was a huge blow.

Also McCaskill is currently doing a town hall tour (I think 10 over 3 days?) through pretty red country so she's doing what she needs to do.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Speaking of 2018 Ohio, the Dem gubernatorial field is actually pretty big with a decent number of real candidates.

Nan Whaley, mayor of Dayton: only one I knew about before because her (pretty good) announcement ad got posted. Seems decent.

Connie Pilch: state representative who survived the Tea Party wave and then got reelected even after her district got gerrymandered to kick her out, ran for Treasurer in 2014 and lost but was the only Ohio Dem to get over 40% of the vote, so she seems decent at elections at least.

Joe Schiavoni: former Senate minority leader from Youngstown, fought against charter schools and for collective bargaining rights

Betty Sutton: congresswoman who took Brown's seat after he ran for the Senate, lost after getting redistricted in the gerrymandered lines

also some guy who ran as a Republican last year lol

Seems like a strong field, especially when compared to, say, Wisconsin.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Has the Alabama Democratic Party recruited anyone for the special Senate election this fall? I know we have less than a snowball's chance, probably less chance than we have of capturing the governorship, but no harm in trying.

I wonder if an Alabama Senate race with little hype and publicity would be as close as the SC-05 race... Probably not.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Speaking of these articles where Trump's numbers are "holding up" in Missouri, I'd love to see high quality polling of Trump's numbers in the Trump Dems Senate states of PA/MI/OH/FL and the Romney Dems states of MO/MT/WV/ND/IN.

Like if PPP has him at -3 in Iowa, -4 in North Carolina, but -16 in Colorado, I would guess that he's probably in the negative mid-to-high single digits in PA/MI/FL and low -3/-4 in Ohio.

And then with MO/MT/WV/ND/IN, who's to say?

They went: (08/12/16)

IN: +1.0, -10.2, -18.91
MO: -.2, -9.4, -18.63
MT: -2.4, -14.7, -20.2
ND: -8.7, -19.6, -35.8
WV: -13.1, -26.8, -42.1

IN and MO are somewhat similar to IA in terms of demographics (somewhat, I know, but I need a barometer somewhere), so my guess is that if there's a ~12 swing against Trump in Iowa from his result in 2016, you'd get somewhere in the mid-positive single digits for IN and MO. MT/ND/WV are MUCH more rural than IA, so I have no idea. But a 6-point win for Gianforte would not inspire much confidence that Trump's numbers are that awesome in MT either, given his 20-point win there.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
whyamihere said:
Speaking of these articles where Trump's numbers are "holding up" in Missouri, I'd love to see high quality polling of Trump's numbers in the Trump Dems Senate states of PA/MI/OH/FL and the Romney Dems states of MO/MT/WV/ND/IN.

Like if PPP has him at -3 in Iowa, -4 in North Carolina, but -16 in Colorado, I would guess that he's probably in the negative mid-to-high single digits in PA/MI/FL and low -3/-4 in Ohio.

And then with MO/MT/WV/ND/IN, who's to say?

They went: (08/12/16)

IN: +1.0, -10.2, -18.91
MO: -.2, -9.4, -18.63
MT: -2.4, -14.7, -20.2
ND: -8.7, -19.6, -35.8
WV: -13.1, -26.8, -42.1

IN and MO are somewhat similar to IA in terms of demographics (somewhat, I know, but I need a barometer somewhere), so my guess is that if there's a ~12 swing against Trump in Iowa from his result in 2016, you'd get somewhere in the mid-positive single digits for IN and MO. MT/ND/WV are MUCH more rural than IA, so I have no idea. But a 6-point win for Gianforte would not inspire much confidence that Trump's numbers are that awesome in MT either, given his 20-point win there.
Click to expand...

Iowa is much whiter than Missouri and Indiana.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Democrats know that they can't focus on demonizing Trump so they might focus on infrastructure, trade and minimum wage. However many Democrats are preparing to go it alone crafting their own agenda.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/democrats-trump-congress-better-deal-240150

Democratic leaders are zeroing in on a new mantra for their long-promised economic agenda: a ”Better Deal."

The rebranding attempt comes as Democrats acknowledge that simply running against President Donald Trump wasn't a winning strategy in 2016 and probably won't work in 2018 either. The slogan, which is still being polled in battleground House districts, aims to convince voters that Democrats have more to offer than the GOP and the self-proclaimed deal-maker in the White House.

But even as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi prepare a jobs package centered on infrastructure, trade and the minimum wage, some of their most vulnerable members are making other plans.

Several moderate Democrats facing reelection next year told POLITICO that no matter what leadership does, they're preparing to craft their own pitch to voters. The ideological and political divides that gripped the party during the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders primary wars are far from healed, and leadership may not find universal support for the left-leaning platform, particularly from those trying to defend seats in Trump-friendly states.
Click to expand...

Several lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO said the overarching lesson they learned from the 2016 election is not that Democrats need a more cohesive economic message. Instead, they say, they need to be able to run a strong campaign in spite of the national Democratic platform.

That's not to say they won't accept a new party plank if it materializes and fits their districts. But they're not counting on it either.

”It would be helpful if there was a good national message, but the Blue Dogs do not count on that or rely on that," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), chairwoman of the moderate Blue Dog super PAC. ”If you have the right candidate, who's a good fit for his or her district, that is what matters the most."
Click to expand...

Schumer has met with nearly all of his 48-member caucus to discuss the agenda, according to a Democratic aide, with a goal of consulting the entire group before the package is released. Some proposals may not attract everyone from both the moderate and liberal wings of the party, the aide said, but Schumer wants a critical mass of the caucus to be on board.

Among the 17 Democratic senators who have yet to sign on to the $15 minimum wage bill championed by Sanders is West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, one of Democrats' most vulnerable incumbents next year and a member of Schumer's leadership team.

”If they think $15 works in every state, it doesn't," Manchin said in an interview. ”That's a challenge. But saying you can leave it to $7.25, that's just ridiculous."

Like other moderates, Manchin said he would wage a reelection battle on his own economic agenda, separating his identity from that of his party.
Click to expand...

I think whatever the Democrats focus on it won't entirely be progressive or conservative.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
I actually like "Better Deal," simplistic though it may be. It alludes to past Democratic successes (New Deal), makes for an easily memorable slogan, and subtly jabs at Trump's self-proclaimed "best deal maker ever" status.

It also provides a broad umbrella under which to run, as what constitutes a "Better Deal" can vary by state or even by district.

Manchin reveals again that he understands the fifty-state strategy better than almost anyone in OT.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I hope that while they're thinking about their own infrastructure plans, they come up with a concise argument against Trump's idea of putting everything into public-private partnerships.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Abinash117 said:
Democrats know that they can't focus on demonizing Trump so they might focus on infrastructure, trade and minimum wage. However many Democrats are preparing to go it alone crafting their own agenda.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/democrats-trump-congress-better-deal-240150







I think whatever the Democrats focus own it won't entirely be progressive or conservative.
Click to expand...

If they can stop folks from nationalizing every local election (within reason) this is sound solid strategy.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
"Better Deal" is shockingly not awful. It sounds enough like a blue collar core thing but also leaves plenty of room to remind the country how Trump has ruined everything for them.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
..................
Oh nice, a Trump plant for his press conference. Politely asking about NK........... and CNN. In the same question! So now he's ranting about CNN! At a diplomatic press conference. I. I... I can't. He has "plans" and "severe" things for fake news, btw. Free, fair press, etc etc etc, but "plans"!
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Were there any details on it in the article?
Click to expand...
The summary posted is pretty good, actually.

Edit: Russian election interference is now "maybe Russia" but also others. Also Obama. He choked. Didn't act because Hillary was going to win, so, uh, I guess he's suggesting it's Obama's own fault that Clinton lost so... oh. OH! That's it! He'll eventually admit it and say it was 100% fine since if Obama actually cared he'd have tried to put a stop to it. Thus he didn't mind the interference. Or something.

...Now he's comparing intel talk of Russian interference to Iraq WMD. And the lady asking about it got cut off. And it's over. Already. Zzz.

CoolOff said:
"Better Deal" vs. "I'm With Her".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use it as a Presidential campaign slogan but as a generic rallying cry it's not bad.
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
What kind of worthless reporter asks Trump (at a joint press conference in Poland with the Polish president) a two part question where part one is asking about North Korea's ICBM and the second is about CNN's coverage of the fucking wrestling tweet.

Edit: I see aspiegamer saw that too.
 
C

CoolOff

Member
"Better Deal" vs. "I'm With Her".

giphy.gif
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
Did you guys just see the joint Polish news conference?

Trump was all over the place about Russian interference. One minute he was saying, it could be Russia but probably some other people or countries. Then he said it was Russia, but it was Obama's fault for not doing anything because he thought Hilary would win. Then he said not all intelligence agencies agreed if it was Russia who was responsible. Then he was back to saying it was probably Russia, but maybe others.

Complete clusterf*ck of a response. It was basically a Greatest Hits version of all his incoherent talking points on Russia.

Then the press conference ends abruptly.
 
C

chadskin

Member
Oooooh boy:

Donald Trump faces renewed scrutiny of the riches that flowed into his real estate empire from the former Soviet Union after a fixer for a Kazakh family accused of pumping dirty money into US property agreed to assist an international investigation into his former business partners.

Felix Sater, a Russian-born dealmaker with organised-crime connections who worked on property ventures including Trump Soho in Manhattan, has attracted attention in recent months as efforts continue to chart the links between the US president's circle and moneymen from Russia and its neighbours.
Click to expand...
Mr Sater has now agreed to co-operate with an international investigation into the alleged money-laundering network, five people with knowledge of the matter said. The co-operation has included working with a team of lawyers and private investigators pursuing civil cases across three continents, the people said. Mr Sater declined to comment.
Click to expand...
There are signs Bayrock's finances may feature in the recently-constituted special prosecutor's investigation the US justice department has ordered into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Robert Mueller, the former FBI chief running the investigation, recently hired Andrew Weissmann, an experienced fraud prosecutor to work on the probe. Mr Weissmann, then an assistant US attorney in New York, signed Mr Sater's 1998 plea deal. Other reported hires have expertise in tracking illicit money flows from the former Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
Just as he has tried to play down his history of involvement with Russia, Mr Trump has sought to portray Mr Sater as a distant acquaintance. Testifying in 2013, he said: ”If he were sitting in the room right now, I really wouldn't know what he looked like."

Mr Sater is said to regard the relationship rather differently. One person involved in the investigation, who has spoken with him, said: ”Felix brags about Trump all the time."
Click to expand...
https://www.ft.com/content/159eb2d8-6162-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1
 
R

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
The Chosen One said:
Did you guys just see the joint Polish news conference?

Trump was all over the place about Russian interference. One minute he was saying, it could be Russia but probably some other people or countries. Then he said it was Russia, but it was Obama's fault for not doing anything because he thought Hilary would win. Then he said not all intelligence agencies agreed if it was Russia who was responsible. Then he was back to saying it was probably Russia, but maybe others.

Complete clusterf*ck of a response. It was basically a Greatest Hits version of all his incoherent talking points on Russia.

Then the press conference ends abruptly.
Click to expand...


I only saw this

"CNN has been fake news for a long to me.. NBC is equally as bad despite the fact i made them a fortune with the apprentice but they forgot that"

What does that have to do with anything? I don't understand.
 
Z

Zolo

Member
Rebel Leader said:
I only saw this

"CNN has been fake news for a long to me.. NBC is equally as bad despite the fact i made them a fortune with the apprentice but they forgot that"

What does that have to do with anything? I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Fake news doesn't 'mean fake. It means they criticism him. He's saying that NBC shouldn't be criticizing him since he helped make them money.

I also remember a point that he likely feels betrayed due to likely being connected to a lot of TV networks and seeing a lot of them as having turned on him.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Y2Kev said:
Yikes at Mark penn oped in the nyt today.
Click to expand...
So he's advocating for a shift back to the center? I'm ok with that as long as it's not so painfully centrist that you won't take a stand for health care, fair taxation, fixing immigration, etc.

But really why should anyone listen to Mark Penn? If Hillary never listened to him in 08 she could have been President.
 
E

exmachina64

Banned
Autodidact said:
Has the Alabama Democratic Party recruited anyone for the special Senate election this fall? I know we have less than a snowball's chance, probably less chance than we have of capturing the governorship, but no harm in trying.

I wonder if an Alabama Senate race with little hype and publicity would be as close as the SC-05 race... Probably not.
Click to expand...

There are eight Democratic candidates running, the primary is on August 15th. Any runoffs will happen on September 26th and the general election will be on December 12th.

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama,_2017

Many of the candidates claim to be pro-life and supportive of the Second Amendment; besides that, they largely line up under the national party's issues.

The leading candidate is considered to be Doug Jones, the favored candidate of the state's Democratic Party and a former U.S. attorney that prosecuted two perpetrators of the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
Dan said:
I hope that while they're thinking about their own infrastructure plans, they come up with a concise argument against Trump's idea of putting everything into public-private partnerships.
Click to expand...

"How would you like every road you drive on to be a Toll Road?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
How games prevent us from Crossing Map Boundaries? (2010 - 2020)
Analysis Trailer
2
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom