2020 Presidential Election Discussion

Started by Badabing523 pages

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm all for the IRS being streamlined as well.

I'd let sales tax remain a state-level issue. Personally, I'd like to see the tax reduced a wee bit in California, we have the highest still, iirc.

Californians get killed with your state taxes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I recommend the Fair Tax Plan over the Flat Tax Plan:

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

That's actually seems good from what I've read in the link. The onus is put on the person. I'll have to check out some other articles regarding the fair tax.

So Elizabeth Warren keeps whinging about Mike Bloomberg and how he had some women accuse him of some stuff and they ended up signing NDA's. She wants him to let the women out of those. Why? So she can get more dirt on him?

Lol she even drafted up a contract for it. My question is how come there is no mention of these women giving the money back in exchange for being released from their NDA? This...she surely isn't suggesting "let them have their cake and eat it too" right?

Why should one be able to go "Okay I won't talk about this in exchange for money" and then years later decide "I should be able to talk about this and keep the money anyways" ?

I don't know... How consensual could it really be, when your jobs on the line and you live in a pre-#meetoo era where most women have to run prohibitively costly legal battles and run a high risk of not being believed..?

Originally posted by cdtm
I don't know... How consensual could it really be, when your jobs on the line and you live in a pre-#meetoo era where most women have to run prohibitively costly legal battles and run a high risk of not being believed..?

This is a good argument for why they should be released from the NDA's, but not for why they should be released and also allowed to keep the money.

With all that said, I don't think Warren is doing this because she feels the women were forced into it. She just wants dirt to use.

Then why doesn't she pay their expenses for outright breaking the agreement? Isn't she rich? Can't her other rich opposition candidates pool their money, or start a foundation for women bound by NDA's?

Originally posted by cdtm
Then why doesn't she pay their expenses for outright breaking the agreement? Isn't she rich? Can't her other rich opposition candidates pool their money, or start a foundation for women bound by NDA's?

It's estimated she and her husband are worth 12 million.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-wealth-real-estate-assets

Originally posted by Badabing
That's actually seems good from what I've read in the link. The onus is put on the person. I'll have to check out some other articles regarding the fair tax.

Took me a bit to move on from Flat Tax to Fair Tax. But the objectives are largely the same for both:

1. Move away from the bloated and obviously corrupt tax system.
2. Implement a tax plan that is truly fair. People pay taxes like they should. Less ways to get out of it. Almost no tax loopholes other than illegal means.
3. Make doing taxes far simpler.

Since both accomplish those goals, they are both winners. However, the Flat Tax plan disproportionately impacts the poor. Which is why I had to abandon it. the Fair Tax Plan offers that pre-bate option so even if you're poor, you still can have a net-0 tax burden. Or even some help. It's like a Universal Basic Income.

And they won't assess taxes against basic foods like fruits and vegetables. Which is how it should be.

It needs more nuance and perhaps it is there.

I view it like this:

Current Tax System<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Flat Tax Plan<<Fair Tax Plan

Meaning, both are so much better than our current system that just getting the Flat Tax Plan working would be a massive massive improvement.

Originally posted by Surtur
So Elizabeth Warren keeps whinging about Mike Bloomberg and how he had some women accuse him of some stuff and they ended up signing NDA's. She wants him to let the women out of those. Why? So she can get more dirt on him?

Lol she even drafted up a contract for it. My question is how come there is no mention of these women giving the money back in exchange for being released from their NDA? This...she surely isn't suggesting "let them have their cake and eat it too" right?

Why should one be able to go "Okay I won't talk about this in exchange for money" and then years later decide "I should be able to talk about this and keep the money anyways" ?

Because it is all a ploy to distract from real campaign and platform issues. It's a clown-show with a bunch of clowns.

Imagine focusing on just the issues instead of attacking other candidates? Imagine running a platform and issues based campaign?

Don't they realize that all they're doing is giving Trump more ammo to use?

The winner of these past several democrat debates has pretty consistently been Trump.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Don't they realize that all they're doing is giving Trump more ammo to use?

Many from the left and from the Democratic Party have been preaching what you just said, for years. Since 2016 after Trump was elected.

They just won't listen. They are getting so caught up with the Dem-High-School-Gossip-Character-Assassination stuff that they are ruining their own party.

https://twitter.com/XxMemeBotxX/status/1230896465872117763

Oh shit they will meltdown if Trump retweets that.

He already retweeted it

https://twitter.com/danscavino/status/1230838461218705408?s=21

Bloomberg is paying people to support him on social media lol.

$2500 a month

I wonder why that is acceptable but Russia buying ads on Facebook isn't.

Because

Trump Temple: Trump has legit been deified

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/at-trump-temple-this-telangana-man-worships-us-prez-as-god/articleshow/74217093.cms

Feds Notify Bernie Sanders That Russia Is Trying To Help His Campaign