Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but you in the US should do what we do and have a checkbox in your tax return authorizing them to use the info you give them to register you to vote. Sorta fits with the whole no taxation without representation thing too, haha.
---

except the people who make laws prefer as few people voting as possible so not gonna happen

JeffreyRaze posted...

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but you in the US should do what we do and have a checkbox in your tax return authorizing them to use the info you give them to register you to vote. Sorta fits with the whole no taxation without representation thing too, haha.

Well, this would probably lead to lots of non-citizens checking the box by mistake.
---

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but you in the US should do what we do and have a checkbox in your tax return authorizing them to use the info you give them to register you to vote. Sorta fits with the whole no taxation without representation thing too, haha.

Well, this would probably lead to lots of non-citizens checking the box by mistake.

Then the info is sent, they are recognized as not eligible, and nothing happens.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but you in the US should do what we do and have a checkbox in your tax return authorizing them to use the info you give them to register you to vote. Sorta fits with the whole no taxation without representation thing too, haha.

Well, this would probably lead to lots of non-citizens checking the box by mistake.

Then the info is sent, they are recognized as not eligible, and nothing happens.

The IRS is not in the business of keeping track of who is a citizen and who isn't. The US government is actually really decentralized in the sense that different agencies (and states) do different things and they aren't very linked. For instance, officially you are supposed to report income from crimes committed on your tax return, and the IRS is not supposed to share that info with the DOJ to prosecute you (but they will collect tax on it, which you would think would make them an accomplice to the crime, but apparently not).
---

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but you in the US should do what we do and have a checkbox in your tax return authorizing them to use the info you give them to register you to vote. Sorta fits with the whole no taxation without representation thing too, haha.

Well, this would probably lead to lots of non-citizens checking the box by mistake.

Then the info is sent, they are recognized as not eligible, and nothing happens.

The IRS is not in the business of keeping track of who is a citizen and who isn't. The US government is actually really decentralized in the sense that different agencies (and states) do different things and they aren't very linked. For instance, officially you are supposed to report income from crimes committed on your tax return, and the IRS is not supposed to share that info with the DOJ to prosecute you (but they will collect tax on it, which you would think would make them an accomplice to the crime, but apparently not).

well as you know, taxation is theft so the IRS actually exclusively does crimes

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.
---

https://apple.news/AnC92YqyTT5CROoA8kVl0xg

(Sorry for the Apple News link)

Bidens REALLY leaning into that happy together message.

There is not a SINGLE thing we cannot do if we work together.

What about Medicare for all, college debt relief/cheaper/free college, reproductive rights, legal weed, marriage equality, etc etc etc?
---

Also in other news, Trump threatened Iran with War, 7 years after literally accusing Obama of wanting war with Iran to win re-election.

LOL.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

just a reminder about this from back in the day where the military did war games against 'unnamed middle eastern country' that is definitely Iran and got mad that they kept losing so they changed the rules until they won

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bidens REALLY leaning into that happy together message.

Did he literally just steal Hillary's Stronger Together message, and change "Stronger" to "happy"?
---

There's a difference. Conservatives (or at least SephG, but he's probably representative) have been talking about working with Biden. Conservatives tried to tell you guys that Hillary was completely unacceptable but no one listened!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also in other news, Trump threatened Iran with War, 7 years after literally accusing Obama of wanting war with Iran to win re-election.

LOL.

He wants what his handlers want no matter the flip flop.
---

Its not as much a flip-flop as a projection of what he would have done (an extremely large fraction of the things Trump accuses his enemies of doing are things he does or would do)
---

Umitencho posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also in other news, Trump threatened Iran with War, 7 years after literally accusing Obama of wanting war with Iran to win re-election.

LOL.

He wants what his handlers want no matter the flip flop.

No, I think its more simple than that.

He accuses people of awful shit because thats what he would do in their position.

Now that he IS in that position, he forgot or doesnt care that he already showed his hand.
---

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1130589092058738693?s=21

So Jesse Watters is so dumb he just unwittingly proposed Elizabeth Warren's plan to pay off student loan debt by taxing billionaires

---

How about forcing schools to accept payment as a percentage of their graduates' future earnings (like the current income-based repayment plans), but with the schools bearing the risk or reward instead of the government?

That way, good schools will be able to accept a low percentage of future earnings, knowing that their grads will succeed and they'll make a lot of money. Bad schools will have to ask for a higher percentage, and if that makes students hesitant to attend, they'll be forced to lower their tuition. Ultimately, the only way the costs can go down is if tuition goes down, so that is the real goal.
---

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1130569805717807104?s=21

Senate Majority Leader McConnell: "Today I'm introducing federal legislation to make 21 the new minimum age for purchasing any tobacco product anywhere in the United States."

Any conservatives with thoughts on this?
---

red sox 777 posted...

How about forcing schools to accept payment as a percentage of their graduates' future earnings (like the current income-based repayment plans), but with the schools bearing the risk or reward instead of the government?

That way, good schools will be able to accept a low percentage of future earnings, knowing that their grads will succeed and they'll make a lot of money. Bad schools will have to ask for a higher percentage, and if that makes students hesitant to attend, they'll be forced to lower their tuition. Ultimately, the only way the costs can go down is if tuition goes down, so that is the real goal.

No. This will pigeonhole academia into a zero sum game full of intellectual stagnation.
---

If you outlaw cigarettes then only outlaws will have cigarettes
---

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with cigarettes is a good guy with cigarettes
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1130569805717807104?s=21

Senate Majority Leader McConnell: "Today I'm introducing federal legislation to make 21 the new minimum age for purchasing any tobacco product anywhere in the United States."

Any conservatives with thoughts on this?

Sounds like Cocaine Mitch doesn't want competition.
---

Umitencho posted...

red sox 777 posted...

How about forcing schools to accept payment as a percentage of their graduates' future earnings (like the current income-based repayment plans), but with the schools bearing the risk or reward instead of the government?

That way, good schools will be able to accept a low percentage of future earnings, knowing that their grads will succeed and they'll make a lot of money. Bad schools will have to ask for a higher percentage, and if that makes students hesitant to attend, they'll be forced to lower their tuition. Ultimately, the only way the costs can go down is if tuition goes down, so that is the real goal.

No. This will pigeonhole academia into a zero sum game full of intellectual stagnation.

You mean because schools might prioritize improving their students' earning prospects at the expense of the search for truth?

That's a valid concern, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing. I'm fairly sure it won't have much effect on that though, because what makes graduates marketable is the prestige of their school, and what gives a school prestige is research output. Schools with no prestige add minimal value and now they won't be able to scam marginal students (or their parents, or the taxpayers) into forking over massive amounts of money to attend.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1130569805717807104?s=21

Senate Majority Leader McConnell: "Today I'm introducing federal legislation to make 21 the new minimum age for purchasing any tobacco product anywhere in the United States."

Any conservatives with thoughts on this?

Should be left to the states but I'm not opposed to the actual law itself
---

Whats the point though?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats the point though?

First we take away the cigarettes. Then we come for the lattes. Without lattes, liberals will flee the US en masse leading to permanent Republican rule.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats the point though?

Presumably to make it harder for kids in high school to get cigarettes. Which will absolutely work (proven successful in NYC for a decade).

I wonder if this applies to juuls and whatnot though.
---

Mitch is in the pocket of BIG VAPE
---

Doesnt it make it harder for legal adults to make choices about their own consumption too though?

Why can you apply this to cigarettes but not guns?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Doesnt it make it harder for legal adults to make choices about their own consumption too though?

Why can you apply this to cigarettes but not guns?

Because the right to self defense is written in the Constitution.

There's a legit debate of whether the government should restrict the ability to smoke. It's more libertarian vs public health than constitutional though. I don't think anyone can really argue that the government CAN'T do this.
---

21 was the age of majority for most of our country's history and still is for alcohol. And the government can certainly regulate what adults do - except when it comes to guns (and free speech, religion, etc.).
---

Raising the smoking age will cause a slight decrease in medical costs due to health benefits at the cost of tax revenue from the purchases.

The taxes are the reason cigarettes are still legal in the first place tbh.

red sox 777 posted...

except when it comes to guns (and free speech, religion, etc.).

the constitution does not limit the governments ability to regulate guns. Unless you want to form a well-regulated militia.
---

It most certainly does. That's why we have all the 2nd Amendment caselaw we have. It doesn't completely eliminate the government's ability to regulate guns but it certainly limits it.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It most certainly does. That's why we have all the 2nd Amendment caselaw we have. It doesn't completely eliminate the government's ability to regulate guns but it certainly limits it.

The only thing that seems protected based on standing rulings is the right to carry what amounts to a handgun. And even then there is lawful precedent to have regulations on that(Such as background checks, etc).
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Because the right to self defense is written in the Constitution.

Oh fuck that. I mean the moral argument.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Because the right to self defense is written in the Constitution.

Oh fuck that. I mean the moral argument.

The moral argument is that self defense is a natural right whereas consumption of a product is not
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty clear that those who contribute most to the country vote Republican and those who feed off of our labors vote Democrat. It's been that way since the 1910s.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty clear that those who contribute most to the country vote Republican and those who feed off of our labors vote Democrat. It's been that way since the 1910s.

This is literally not true. The counties that voted for Clinton far outpaced the counties that voted for Trump in GDP. The states using the most welfare are all red states.
---

Imagine bringing up morals to a blatant sociopath that only liberals are stupid enough to think could ever be respectable in any regard (because they are also rich idiots who worship fancy schools that have churned out or worst war criminals)

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty clear that those who contribute most to the country vote Republican and those who feed off of our labors vote Democrat. It's been that way since the 1910s.

This is literally not true. The counties that voted for Clinton far outpaced the counties that voted for Trump in GDP. The states using the most welfare are all red states.

But if you look at the counties that voted for Clinton, the majority of the GDP production in those counties is going to be coming from people who vote Republican. Remember the top 1% alone accounts for 24% of national income.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Because the right to self defense is written in the Constitution.

Oh fuck that. I mean the moral argument.

The moral argument is that self defense is a natural right whereas consumption of a product is not

Natural rights do not exist
---

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty clear that those who contribute most to the country vote Republican and those who feed off of our labors vote Democrat. It's been that way since the 1910s.

This is literally not true. The counties that voted for Clinton far outpaced the counties that voted for Trump in GDP. The states using the most welfare are all red states.

But if you look at the counties that voted for Clinton, the majority of the GDP production in those counties is going to be coming from people who vote Republican. Remember the top 1% alone accounts for 24% of national income.

How do the numbers skew if Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos voted for Clinton?
---

https://www.wfla.com/national/survey-most-americans-say-arabic-numerals-should-not-be-taught-in-school/2012373609

56% of Americans think Arabic Numerals should not be taught in schools.
---

You mean LVI% of Americans
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That said, Republicans might jump on this proposal. They think that most people who pay income tax support them, which is probably true.

This is most definitely true. If people who didn't pay federal income taxes didn't vote (most don't already), the GOP would never lose a presidential election again. California would be red.

Lol, remember when the right to vote was only given to white males who owned property? Wed win every time if it went back to that.

Well yeah. I think it's pretty clear that those who contribute most to the country vote Republican and those who feed off of our labors vote Democrat. It's been that way since the 1910s.

This is literally not true. The counties that voted for Clinton far outpaced the counties that voted for Trump in GDP. The states using the most welfare are all red states.

But if you look at the counties that voted for Clinton, the majority of the GDP production in those counties is going to be coming from people who vote Republican. Remember the top 1% alone accounts for 24% of national income.

How do the numbers skew if Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos voted for Clinton?

King County, Washington is probably going to go for Democrats by a wide margin. But I think the GOP is safe nationally.
---

Ashethan posted...

https://www.wfla.com/national/survey-most-americans-say-arabic-numerals-should-not-be-taught-in-school/2012373609

56% of Americans think Arabic Numerals should not be taught in schools.

https://twitter.com/Ryano_98/status/1127370376055599104

I, for one, prefer Roman numerals.

this completely killed me
---

Ashethan posted...

https://www.wfla.com/national/survey-most-americans-say-arabic-numerals-should-not-be-taught-in-school/2012373609

56% of Americans think Arabic Numerals should not be taught in schools.

I blame the dumbing down of our education system. Instead of teaching students about the difference between a number and a numeral, and teaching them about different classes of numbers like natural numbers, whole numbers, integers, fractions, decimals, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc., our dumbed-down schools just teach students that there are just "numbers" and they are objective, universal, and real, rather than abstract imaginary objects. I bet most students don't even know that decimals are a way of expressing sums of fractions.
---

Bomb Agrabah.
---