Election 2016

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:21 am

Tussock, stop being a dumbshit. Bernie Sanders has an electoral history stretching back 46 years, a civil rights history before that, and has been a mayor, representative, and senator (to say nothing of the gubernatorial elections he ran it but didn't win) and was well known enough to hit double digit percentages as a write in for several elections.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:24 am

tussock wrote:It's not magic, Kaelik. No one knew who the fuck Bernie Sanders was until he was in the running to be the Democrat's candidate, but then he spoke at huge rallies and on national TV repeatedly and strangely enough the people who liked around the country him were exceptionally close the same groups who liked him in his home state, where folks already knew him, in a completely predictable way.

Tussock, in your continued quest to be wrong about everything you missed the fact that Tim Kaine is, according to the person I was paraphrasing and then criticizing "personally popular in Virginia and Pennsylvania", and not in Ohio and Florida. So yeah, it literally doesn't fucking matter whether some hypothetical person might like Kaine, because if he's unknown in PA, then the statement that he helps Clinton win PA by being personally popular in PA (even though he isn't known in Ohio or Florida and therefore won't help her win those states) is still wrong.

Now, maybe he is personally popular in PA, but given everything else so far in this thread and reality, it's much more likely that Frank said "well Clinton needs to win two swing states, so I will name two swing states that Kaine will help her win" and just picked PA as the least stupid sounding second choice after Virginia.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:42 am

Tussock why are you so mad about Bernie? Bernie did well with energizing the youth vote considering he is an outsider going up against a well known named Dem. He went largely unscathed by the media who really didn't (or couldn't) really find any big thing to fault him on. He raised a bunch of money despite not having the major money bags backing him. His message FORCED the assumed shoe in to adjust her message. There's nothing bad you can say about him or his run without seeming unreasonably butt hurt just over the fact that he ran and some number of people liked him.

Now, when the subject matter is how Clinton seems to have lost a notable number of Dem votes (somehow), you are trying to downplay him more. It's already done with. Bernie has indeed lost and you can let it go now. Why are you focusing so much of your rant on him when he isn't even the subject under examination?

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:51 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: Tim Kaine is personally popular in Virginia and Pennsylvania,
Speaking as a Pennsylvanian, he seems to be more of an unknown than a "popular" around here in my corner of this state. Got any non-anecdotal evidence of his popularity in PA to trump my observations?

Well, I'm not in a corner of the state, but the idea that any significant number of Pennsylvanians would have any idea who any random Southern Senator is pretty much a pipe dream. Maybe a few up in Harrisburg, but they live in the middle of the Sea of Red, so... yeah, whatever. All that really matters is pushing voters to the polls in the Pitt and the Love.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:53 am

MGuy wrote:Now, when the subject matter is how Clinton seems to have lost a notable number of Dem votes (somehow), you are trying to downplay him more. It's already done with. Bernie has indeed lost and you can let it go now. Why are you focusing so much of your rant on him when he isn't even the subject under examination?

Because no one hates the Left left more than the Center Right-Center-Center Left Establishment Democrats who blame it for all their problems. Look at Germany, where the Right rules because the "Left" refuses to caucus with the Greens, or Australia, where apparently the "Left" spends all their time hating on the Greens.

This is just the US version of that same thing, where if Clinton is having problems, it can only ever be because the left are at fault for being whiny babies, and it can't possibly be that the Democratic establishment spending literally every day of the last 24 years telling the left that they are garbage shitters who need to shut up and let the grown ups talk has not convinced the moderates of anything, and has created a general sense of ennui. Nevermind that the actual leftists will probably vote for Clinton in greater percentages than the moderate center rights, spending even one second actually energizing the base is something that Clinton at least sometimes thinks is worthwhile, but a bunch of her supporters seem to think is a literal crime that must never occur.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:06 am

Isn't that in part, at least in America, due to the term leftist (and then liberal) being considered a dirty word for somewhere near a generation? A lot of disillusioned left people went center rightish (like the hilariously named New Left) and stayed there as the right went further into madness.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:12 am

Mask_De_H wrote:Isn't that in part, at least in America, due to the term leftist (and then liberal) being considered a dirty word for somewhere near a generation? A lot of disillusioned left people went center rightish (like the hilariously named New Left) and stayed there as the right went further into madness.

I mean... yes? But they didn't do that because they spontaneously decided that leftism is bad without outside influence, they did it in part in response to being to a bunch of center right people telling them they were supposed to be disillusioned, and then every single politician toeing that party line for a generation.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:52 am

Kaelik wrote: or Australia, where apparently the "Left" spends all their time hating on the Greens.

This is 100% true.

It's also a problem in the UK. In both cases, the formerly "Left" parties (Labour in the UK, Labor in AU) grew complacent with being "the one alternative to the Tories" and sat there, gradually sliding Right as the window of dialogue was dragged in that direction by insane assholes. And then when people start saying "You've kind of betrayed your voterbase and can't just sit there expecting to eat up progressive votes by dint of not being Hitler" and turning to actual progressive and Left wing parties, they both threw a tantrum and started blaming the actual Left wing parties (for everything, including "the super crazy racist got into parliament, that's definitely the fault of the Greens"). And running "Don't vote for the Tories, BUT ESPECIALLY DON'T VOTE FOR THE PROPERLY PROGRESSIVE PARTIES" ads.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:26 pm

MGuy wrote:Tussock why are you so mad about Bernie?

This thread became a thing where people were saying that maybe Sanders wouldn't be doing "this bad", by suggesting he might do better in a popularity contest.

But y'all just had a fucking popularity contest, in which he did not do better. Facts.

Now, when the subject matter is how Clinton seems to have lost a notable number of Dem votes (somehow), you are trying to downplay him more. It's already done with. Bernie has indeed lost and you can let it go now. Why are you focusing so much of your rant on him when he isn't even the subject under examination?

Fuck you, man. I quoted the bit that was specifically about Sanders that I replied to, it was a long-ass rant about how Sanders was a cool guy and might do better than Clinton.

If you care why Clinton's polling numbers have closed with Trumps since the end of the primary, there's several essays on fivethirtyeight about it. (ignoring the convention bounces) It's the economy, stupid. Shit has been not good enough to traditionally hold the same government in office for quite a long time now, Republicans even went all tea-party about it. It's a thing. Also, it is genuinely harder to win as a Democrat this time than for a long time, because of the demographic shifts around swing states help the Republicans.

If the simmering anger at the establishment hadn't caused Trump to rise to the top, the Republicans were expected to win with an average candidate, even from 2% down on the popular vote. Where in 2008, Obama could've won from 2% down. Things change, Clinton has to do better than Obama did, and is doing better than Obama did, with the help of an unusually shit Republican candidate.

Some Arizona republican group since forever ago just broke with 126 years of tradition to call on local Republicans to vote Clinton, in part because she picked a more moderate VP. That's a pretty red state, man, she's doing well.

--

And now the thread is into the lefties hating on the less pure lefties for various butt-hurts in other countries. I love it, please do continue. Also, vote Clinton, save the world.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:48 pm

Great so she is doing better with maybe one republican group while simultaneously being one of the least trusted candidates in history. I can see how that puts her ahead of Obama who got my red state to turn Blue for his first election without being against a Trump.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:39 pm

http://boingboing.net/2016/09/30/donald ... xtape.html

I'm not sure how much lower this election will go.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:17 pm

nockermensch wrote:Re: the debate.

We're entering some kind of post-factual era, as despite Hillary "winning", the race seemingly became closer.

It took almost a week, but here you go:

Clinton up in swing states, post debate

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:22 pm

Ancient History wrote:http://boingboing.net/2016/09/30/donald ... xtape.html

I'm not sure how much lower this election will go.

Pretty sure him ranting and raving at a former Miss Universe is still the lowest bar.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:38 pm

And sadly, it doesn't seem to matter much. He hasn't actually eaten a baby, so it doesn't count.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:49 pm

tussock wrote:
MGuy wrote:Tussock why are you so mad about Bernie?
This thread became a thing where people were saying that maybe Sanders wouldn't be doing "this bad", by suggesting he might do better in a popularity contest.

Except for the part where literally no one said that at any point, and you are a delusional idiot.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:51 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/po ... taxes.html

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:16 pm

That release seems to have been responsible for his turning up 80 minutes late to a rally, then rambling aimlessly for an hour, including accusing Hillary of cheating on Bill. A lot of people left the hall while he was speaking.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:17 pm

Ancient History wrote:http://boingboing.net/2016/09/30/donald ... xtape.html

I'm not sure how much lower this election will go.

I really don't think that counts as a Donald Trump sex tape. He shows up for like, 30 seconds and doesn't even take off his clothes.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:57 pm

Some Asshole from Trump's Campaign wrote:Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.

What a fucking asshole, citing all the employees he's ever had work for one of his companies withheld income tax and FICA taxes as taxes that he paid.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:04 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Some Asshole from Trump's Campaign wrote:Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.
What a fucking asshole, citing all the employees he's ever had work for one of his companies withheld income tax and FICA taxes as taxes that he paid.

Employers actually have to pay 50% of FICA themselves. I know this because I'm self-employed, and thus my FICA taxes are twice what they would otherwise be.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:43 pm

hyzmarca wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
Some Asshole from Trump's Campaign wrote:Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.
What a fucking asshole, citing all the employees he's ever had work for one of his companies withheld income tax and FICA taxes as taxes that he paid.
Employers actually have to pay 50% of FICA themselves. I know this because I'm self-employed, and thus my FICA taxes are twice what they would otherwise be.

I know that too, because I'm not an idiot, and it doesn't fucking matter. That's just money you budget into their salary, and it's fucking bullshit to call that a tax you pay.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:45 pm

hyzmarca wrote:
Employers actually have to pay 50% of FICA themselves. I know this because I'm self-employed, and thus my FICA taxes are twice what they would otherwise be.

1. A truer way to phrase that it that your financial records reflect the entire amount of FICA taxes paid, not merely the half of FICA taxes which show up on most employees' paystubs and W-2s.

2. Being self employed, you actually pay *less* in FICA taxes than the total amount of FICA taxes imposed on the typical employee when you count the withholding that shows up on the employer's records. 1040 Schedule SE has a line 4 where you multiply your net profit by 0.9235 before you calculate your FICA tax liability.

2b. You also get to take a(n) tax deduction adjustment to your AGI for half of FICA taxes paid. Those categorized as employees do not get any equivalent deductions (although their employers often do ).

This stuff is worth being pedantic over as redefining the employee / contractor line should really be a major economic issue this election, in light of the growth of Uber, Air BnB, and similar "gig economy" businesses. That it's not even being discused is just another travesty.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:25 am

I try to talk to my dad about things like being a contractor, and there's just absolutely no comprehension there. He still thinks that people get jobs for life, though maybe not pensions like he has. My mom just moved into the gig economy, and we talk through it a lot. The ingrained work relationship of employer/employee is just so expected that even people I know who are contractors sometimes don't really understand.

The problem with it that I see is that Americans are so free-market loving, that contracting is written off with quips like, "There's nothing wrong with earning some money on the side," or, "They're go-getters. Good for them." And then Uber and AirBNB are praised as enabling people to get something for nothing.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:29 am

Well there is nothing wrong with contracting.

What I take issue with is the way many of the major players in the gig economy take advantage of ordinary people's ignorance of the tax and liability consequences of contracting situations -- and with the way that tax law does not have a clear line to determine which category any given position should fall into.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:41 pm

The law is clearer than you give it credit for, Uber et al just flaunt it outright.

Like, if Uber isn't employing their drivers, then they are, quite simply, an enormous price-fixing conspiracy. They cannot have it two ways and it is a far more direct interpretation of their business to classify their drivers as employees.

My understanding, however, is that this is a business that literally hasn't generated a penny of profit and has operated, essentially, as a giant mill for setting VC money on fire. The jittany-summoning app is a byproduct. The lionshare of the revenue disparity has gone towards legal expenses and fighting entrenched competitors who, among other things, have the advantage of being legally square, so the arc of society already seems to be curving towards a smackdown on this front without a need for much general activism.