Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 313: August and Everything After

(+) Yeah! (+)

red sox 777 posted...

Contrary to popular belief, in many situations there's only so much a good accountant or tax lawyer can do. If you have a lot of straight W-2 income, there's very little that can be done.

If you have a lot of straight W-2 income you don't have a good accountant.

Source: My partner has a masters in accounting.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

If you have a lot of straight W-2 income you don't have a good accountant.

Source: My partner has a masters in accounting.

Haha, touche. I guess someone who is really good does a lot of preventative care.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Too long, didnt read

tldr you're either an idiot, dishonest, or too enamored with being correct that you missed the forest for the trees

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

If you have a lot of straight W-2 income you don't have a good accountant.

Source: My partner has a masters in accounting.

There is a reason most CEOs are paid in stock.

---

Maniac64 posted...

There is a reason most CEOs are paid in stock.

And there it is

---

red sox 777 posted...

Contrary to popular belief, in many situations there's only so much a good accountant or tax lawyer can do. If you have a lot of straight W-2 income, there's very little that can be done.

A person who isn't smart or has an accountant doesn't know how to itemize period.

---

Corrik7 posted...

A person who isn't smart or has an accountant doesn't know how to itemize period.

If you don't itemize, the SALT cap has zero effect on you. You need 10k in SALT deductions (and 12k in total itemized deductions) for it to matter to you at all.

HeroicCrono posted...

If you don't itemize, the SALT cap has zero effect on you. You need 10k in SALT deductions (and 12k in total itemized deductions) for it to matter to you at all.

I am aware.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Power.

Not sure how you made the takeaway from 1984 that the Party is something you'd support, but it does fall in line with your other posts and your obsession that the Democrats REPENT!!! like you're a medieval inquisitor.

---

I think the thing to understand is that we all desire some level of power, some just take it further because they can't ever have enough and become demented. It is why Bernie Sanders is a poor Politician even though he is a lovely man. It was brought to my attention that AOC didn't endorse Cori Bush against Clay - a move that surprised some. But Clay had helped her on some things and he hadn't done anything more than bog standard horrible stuff compared to outliers, so AOC reserved her political clout in case he won instead of hero balling it. Now, she will have a congresswoman who naturally agrees with her on many issues and there's really nothing to hash out there. It was a politically shrewd move and allows her to work on the greater issues. Bernie, who gives no fucks, supported Bush freely and strongly.

I love Bernie, but AOC's future is amazingly bright because she seems to have an understanding that you can't burn ALL of the house you live in down, just a lot of its sore points at first - which is good strategy.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Power.

Is it of the unlimited variety?

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Is it of the unlimited variety?

Of course.

Now, it's the job of the Democrats to put limits in it, but they are doing a horrible job!

trdl23 posted...

Not sure how you made the takeaway from 1984 that the Party is something you'd support, but it does fall in line with your other posts and your obsession that the Democrats REPENT!!! like you're a medieval inquisitor.

From what I've seen, there's a subset of right wing people like to roleplay as Machiavellian masterminds. They feel largely unaffected by the actual policies, so they convince themselves that the whole thing of politicians seeking power to the detriment of others is actually awesome.

I don't really get it, but from my interactions with these people, they believe that when politicians get away with bad shit, it just proves their cunning and somehow by extension proves the cunning of their supporters.

---

VintageGin posted...

From what I've seen, there's a subset of right wing people like to roleplay as Machiavellian masterminds. They feel largely unaffected by the actual policies, so they convince themselves that the whole thing of politicians seeking power to the detriment of others is actually awesome.

I don't really get it, but from my interactions with these people, they believe that when politicians get away with bad shit, it just proves their cunning and somehow by extension proves the cunning of their supporters.

Whether it's good or bad, it exists. And Democrats need to wake up to that, or keep losing. That's why I want them to "repent."

---

Like, as an upper middle class person with student loans who's starting to feel an impact from the SALT deduction cap, I feel like the Democrats are doing a lot to try to buy my vote. But they do absolutely nothing for the working class worker, except to try to bully them into voting for them by talking about how bad Trump is. When they do propose something that is of economic benefit to the working class, it's invariably patronizing and asks people to rely on the government rather than giving them greater control over the means of production of their own sustenance. For instance, the Dems have made it clear they want "nonessential" workers to be collecting unemployment from the government instead of working. But meanwhile, they classify lawyers as essential workers and want to cut taxes for white collar workers who are able to work from home during the pandemic.

The Democrats need to repent for their abandonment of the working class and poor. At least for me, no amount of trying to buy my vote will suffice if they don't also make a good offer to people in greater need than me.


---

NFUN posted...

tldr you're either an idiot, dishonest, or too enamored with being correct that you missed the forest for the trees

I made a very offhand comment and youre taking it way too seriously.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I made a very offhand comment and youre taking it way too seriously.

Stay out of my domain

---

Here in California, there's a lot of people who bought a house for $100k and have seen its value rise to over $1 million. Thanks to Prop 13 in CA, they pay very little property tax relative to the actual value of the house, since the tax is based on the purchase price. Yet, they are now complaining that they don't get to deduct the full amount of their property tax and state income tax from their federal taxable income. We don't need extra tax breaks for millionaires. Not while our infrastructure is crumbling, inequality is at record highs, and inflation-adjusted wages haven't gone up for working class people in 40 years.

You see the Republicans won the 2016 election because they MADE AN OFFER. The offer was to give an aid package 80% to the top 1% and split the other 20% among the bottom 80% or so, with the 20% below the top 1% paying for it. The Democrats complain and complain about how bad this offer is.....but they never made a counteroffer. They offered nothing. 20% is better than 0.

And now they still absolutely refuse to make an offer. So they try to make the election about morals and identity and Trump's character. Because the establishment Dems absolutely will not do a thing that would require the upper middle class to pay a penny more than they do now, and they've basically completely given up on making the rich pay more. So they offer nothing.

What Biden should do is REPENT, and lead the party in repentance. Admit that he's lost his way. Admit the party has lost its way. Then refuse the nomination and instruct his delegates to vote for Bernie.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Whether it's good or bad, it exists.

what do you mean, "whether it's good or bad"?

"gee i have no idea whether or not republicans wanting power no matter what the consequences are is bad."

---

I guess now we can know the exact moment in time when we got tired of winning:

https://twitter.com/conorsen/status/1290969503967383552

---

As someone in the never category, this poll makes me extremely upset (and Id bet Nates followers are biased towards being people who take the pandemic more seriously than the average person):

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1291085595826171905?s=21

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what do you mean, "whether it's good or bad"?

"gee i have no idea whether or not republicans wanting power no matter what the consequences are is bad."

Well, if the consequences are good, wouldn't it be good? Our system is based on checks and balances.....the idea is that people should strive for power but never attain it. And in the striving they do good things.

---

That isn't what checks and balances means.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Well, if the consequences are good, wouldn't it be good?

not really, no. we only need to take one look at nazi germany to know that "people wanting power and stopping at nothing to get it" can lead to terrible consequences.

good things should happen because people want them to happen. they shouldn't incidentally happen because people lust for power.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

not really, no. we only need to take one look at nazi germany to know that "people wanting power and stopping at nothing to get it" can lead to terrible consequences.

good things should happen because people want them to happen. they shouldn't incidentally happen because people lust for power.

Because their constitution wasn't set up to achieve a peaceful balance of power. Power was concentrated in one institution - the Reichstag. To the extent that there was another center of power at all, it was in the office of the Presidency, which by 1932 was occupied by a popular and respected but senile octagenarian. They had not one but two major parties (the Nazis and the Communists) openly advocating for an end to democracy while campaigning in an election.

The US system does not rely on people being virtuous all the time, because the reality is, sometimes they are not. And you want a strong system of laws and customs to ensure that bad people cannot get too much power. In the US, the greatest danger comes when the two big parties agree - then there are not much in checks and balances stopping them from acting together. So the centrists are the most dangerous people to put in office.

---

In short, it's much better to rely on a strong, well-crafted, constitution that limits all power, good or bad, than on being able to constantly select good leaders. The constitution needs to be set up to stop people from getting too much power, regardless of whether they are good or bad. Because bad leaders will still believe themselves good, and get followers to believe the same.

---

red sox 777 posted...

In short, it's much better to rely on a strong, well-crafted, constitution that limits all power, good or bad, than on being able to constantly select good leaders. The constitution needs to be set up to stop people from getting too much power, regardless of whether they are good or bad. Because bad leaders will still believe themselves good, and get followers to believe the same.

Agreed but that doesnt mean we should intentionally select bad leaders hoping they will do good in their pursuit of bad. And then yell at the other side to do better at stopping the bad leaders from doing bad.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

As someone in the never category, this poll makes me extremely upset (and Id bet Nates followers are biased towards being people who take the pandemic more seriously than the average person):

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1291085595826171905?s=21

I just had my first in-person interaction with my friends since March (for a small engagement party) and now I have sealed myself back into my tube probably until October
---

So I have a question about defunding and/or abolishing the Police. I lean liberal, but I don't understand this push personally. What exactly is the our proposed action for security and law enforcement if we have no police? I'm legit ignorant here and want to know what happens if the police are abolished from the USA.

---

BakusaiTenketsu posted...

So I have a question about defunding and/or abolishing the Police. I lean liberal, but I don't understand this push personally. What exactly is the our proposed action for security and law enforcement if we have no police? I'm legit ignorant here and want to know what happens if the police are abolished from the USA.

No one wants to abolish. They want to defund ie lower funding and use it in other areas so police are more specialized and also so they don't get tanks.

---

I read an article about a woman who was deboarded from an airline who supports abolishing the police, so there is definitely a movement or following going on there.

---

relatively no one I should say. I am very left compared to most and I haven't even thought about it. That is fringe even for me, a huge bernie fan

---

For example having a staff of psychiatrists and counselors who can respond to domestic disturbance type situations. If a married couple are shouting at each other so much that their neighbors call the police it is probably more useful to introduce a trained counselor as opposed to a random "person with gun".

There are of course still going to be circumstances where an armed response is necessary, but there are many situations where that can be removed from the equation.

.

The emotional counter argument is "now all the bad guys are going to know that most cops aren't carrying guns so they will just SHOOT them!!!1!", but in places where these systems have been implemented that has been found to not be true. It's the same as the "if you ban guns then only the BAD GUYS will have guns" argument, when the statistics prove that gun violence across the board will be greatly reduced.

---

BakusaiTenketsu posted...

I read an article about a woman who was deboarded from an airline who supports abolishing the police, so there is definitely a movement or following going on there.

Idiots will be idiots, basically. The idea, as Chris implied, is to move police funding to things like social services so that cops aren't trying to solve homeless problems, noise complaints, traffic enforcement, etc, and go further in emphasizing deescalation and alternatives to use of force. Anybody calling for outright abolition of the police is either missing the point, or trying to take the "start at the far extreme to negotiate down to what you actually want" thing a bit far.

If we aren't able to create a police force that isn't comprised of a bunch of violent jackasses who mostly exist to uphold white supremacy and force people into slave labor then I actually would like to abolish them

DoomTheGyarados posted...

relatively no one I should say. I am very left compared to most and I haven't even thought about it. That is fringe even for me, a huge bernie fan

^

"Reform the police so they can focus on tasks they are best suited for and distribute their funding as necessary among needed social programs to help reduce the burden on the police and lead to a better outcome for all of society" isn't as catchy tho

I won't deny the "ABOLISH THE POLICE AND WE CAN POLICE OURSELVES" people are out there, but I am also very left (Warren and then Sanders) and almost no one that I speak to regularly actually wants to get rid of all the police officers.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

If we aren't able to create a police force that isn't comprised of a bunch of violent jackasses who mostly exist to uphold white supremacy and force people into slave labor then I actually would like to abolish them

This is certainly something to examine once we've tried reform and funding reallocation, but going straight there is putting the cart before the horse I think.

Reg posted...

This is certainly something to examine once we've tried reform and funding reallocation, but going straight there is putting the cart before the horse I think.

I don't really have a lot of faith

Speaking of articles I've read (and probably something I may be doing too much of during this pandemic), there was an article back in June that stated we have never been so far apart politically since the Civil War that some experts believe that we may be heading towards a second Civil War (a lite version, not a bloodshed), and I'm curious how much truth there is to this.

We are already politically charged as a nation with the pandemic, the movent for black lives, history versus heritage, and voting. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to have a second Civil War.

---

I'm of the opinion that if we don't burn it all to the ground first then the rebuilding is already stained beyond repair

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

If we aren't able to create a police force that isn't comprised of a bunch of violent jackasses who mostly exist to uphold white supremacy and force people into slave labor then I actually would like to abolish them

This, and people who expect any sort of meaningful reform to happen without first tearing things down are naive (which means there will be no meaningful reform)

Current system is absolutely rotten to the core

---

I am of the opinion that incremental reform of the police system is not possible at this point, and I am normally a big proponent of incremental reform

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1291129823763607558?s=21

Uhhhhhhh

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I am of the opinion that incremental reform of the police system is not possible at this point, and I am normally a big proponent of incremental reform

(I mean look at me, I'm the guy who yells at everyone who says they're not voting for biden)

Yeah put me on team "yes, I would like to literally abolish the police."

It won't actually be possible without generations of social progress, though. You guys don't have to act so alarmed.

---

https://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1291127967725359105?s=21

10 of Kanyes 18 OH electors live at one of two addresses

---

Also let me attempt to engage with the original question to illustrate the point here

BakusaiTenketsu posted...

So I have a question about defunding and/or abolishing the Police. I lean liberal, but I don't understand this push personally. What exactly is the our proposed action for security and law enforcement if we have no police? I'm legit ignorant here and want to know what happens if the police are abolished from the USA.

The short answer is: we don't know! But that's because we don't possess the social technology needed to definitely say. To draw a point of comparison to climate change, if someone says "we need to stop using ALL fossil fuels" the common response is "how? We have no sufficient energy alternatives." In both cases, the solution is to develop that technology. And activists, community organizations, and indigenous people have been doing work to see what forms community-based "transformative justice" might take.

Here's an article you can read if you have time that might shed some light on that approach
https://www.bustle.com/rule-breakers/police-abolition-domestic-violence

The second thing is, we do know what the process of police abolition looks like, and it's basically exactly what Sir Chris and Reg said - you reallocate resources away from the police towards alternatives that will do a better job of solving the "problems" police aren't equipped to handle. And you keep doing this until you figure out the bare minimum resources you can give to police and have a safe society. Defund and Abolish are in agreement on this - they differ on the endpoint. Police abolitionists are pretty sure that we'll eventually get to the point where the best number of cops is zero, so they do this work with that in mind as the goal.

---

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1291134729497071617

Orange County Jail is in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak and was facing an order from a District Court to implement safety regulations regarding said outbreak. The jail had lied to the District Court about safety policies it had implemented. The Ninth Circuit had twice denied the jail's request to stay that order.

SCOTUS (5-4, guess who): nah, we'll give you that stay, i'm sure we can trust you to see to safety on your own

~~~

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/nyregion/trump-taxes-vance-deutsche-bank.html

Also, the Manhattan DA subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for financial records that Trump and his company provided them, including any materials that might point to possible fraud. Of note here is that they are complying.

---

https://twitter.com/robertjdenault/status/1291157276347244544?s=19

---

I know the timing on that being right after the NYT article makes it easy to link the two but I'm not getting my hopes up that it's related. Trump is still fighting the Manhattan DA over his personal tax returns despite the SCOTUS ruling so you have to imagine that's still a matter in progress.

---