Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

While I'm not necessarily trying to defend anyone here, it's important to remember that first, someone on the campaign trail doesn't really know what it's going to be like to be president, they may have a good idea but at the end of the day it's gonna end up a lot more difficult than they expected. Also, the situation changes and a president has to be willing to adapt to those changes. So not every claim made on the campaign trail that isn't followed through on is necessarily a lie, I'm sure we could find a huge list of examples that were pretty obviously ones, though.

[RedKing]

Here's a horrifying thought for you all to muse on: Rick Santorum is almost certainly the single most honest politician in this entire election.

Ron Paul will run forever because he believes in his ideology Ron Paul far more than his supporters' money means to him.

FTFY

[nenjin]

That is Santorum's great redeeming point. I'd give my left hand if all politicians from now on were as honest as Santorum is. Unfortunately, Santorum is honest about the sorts of things that Santorum believes.

Awesome. Now to just get around the fact he truly believes horribly backward, stupid, misogynist, creepy-religious things....

[Nadaka]

That is Santorum's great redeeming point. I'd give my left hand if all politicians from now on were as honest as Santorum is. Unfortunately, Santorum is honest about the sorts of things that Santorum believes.

Awesome. Now to just get around the fact he truly believes horribly backward, stupid, misogynist, creepy-religious things....

Yea, you don't say that it is a redeeming feature of a wolf that his isn't cloaked in the skin of the sheep he has killed.

And... I was going to Godwin this, but you get the point.

[RedKing]

So...the Missouri caucuses were apparently even a bigger clusterfuck than we realized. Some quick hits from that article:

• Largest caucus in the state shut down before actually choosing any delegates because of near-riot. Two Ron Paul supporters arrested.
• Some caucuses in the large cities of St. Louis and Kansas City actually postponed to next weekend, to avoid conflict with St. Patrick's Day.
• Apparently, the caucus delegates chosen this weekend will go to another set of caucuses in April, and the delegates selected there will go to yet another set of caucuses in May to select the delegates to go to Tampa.

In the meantime, Romney wins Puerto Rico and tomorrow we get a primary in Illinois. Polling supports a pretty solid Romney win (around 40-45%), followed by Santorum in the low 30's, Gingrich around 13-15%, and Paul at about 8-10%. BUT...Illinois is unique in being a "loophole primary", in which you're not voting for the candidate per se, you're voting for the delegate. Each candidate for delegate is required to list their Presidential candidate preference, which will be listed on the ballot. Voters then directly elect the delegates they want, per Congressional district. Oh, and its an open primary (so the potential for monkeywrenching exists), and AFAIK of all the delegate candidates running, only 2 have stated preferences (both for Romney) with the rest being listed as "Uncommitted". Although by law they are not bound to the preference that they state.

So in short, WTF ILLINOIS? Did you guys have a bet with Missouri as to who could come up with the most fucked-up primary system?

To put this in practical terms: Let's say I'm a Santorum supporter. I don't go to the polls to vote for Santorum. I go to vote for 3-5 people out of a slate of maybe 10, to be delegates. Pretty much all of them are blank slates because they don't tell me who they're going to vote for. And even if they do, they could be lying through their teeth and change their vote at any time. For all I know, the two that listed Romney could be Ron Paul sleeper agents. It's like someone heard about a parliamentary system but didn't actually read the details.

[FearfulJesuit]

I was only 12 when the last primaries happened, and didn't give a flip about them, but is this level of pointless complexity common, or is what's going on with Missouri and Illinois something that happens most every election?

[roflgar]

I was only 12 when the last primaries happened, and didn't give a flip about them, but is this level of pointless complexity common, or is what's going on with Missouri and Illinois something that happens most every election?

it happens in those places, yes.

because really, there wasn't enough retarded things going on in the world already.

[scriver]

Yea, you don't say that it is a redeeming feature of a wolf that his isn't cloaked in the skin of the sheep he has killed.

No, the redeeming factor of a wolf is that it isn't a bear

[nenjin]

See, a bear will probably snap your vertebrae in the process of eating you, killing you before its finished.

So in that sense, I'd rather be eaten by a bear than gnawed on by a Wolf until I bleed to death or die of shock.

[nenjin]

And on that cheerful note....here's a preview of the House Republican Tax "Reform" plan for 2013. The one Romney would, I'm sure, want to sign in a heartbeat, should he win the nomination and election. Heck, I'm sure all Republican candidates except Ron Paul would sign that. Changing the US tax system to a territory-based tax code? Who doesn't want that?

[Twi]

And on that cheerful note....here's a preview of the House Republican Tax "Reform" plan for 2013. The one Romney would, I'm sure, want to sign in a heartbeat, should he win the nomination and election. Heck, I'm sure all Republican candidates except Ron Paul would sign that. Changing the US tax system to a territory-based tax code? Who doesn't want that?

My economics knowledge is insufficient.
Why is this so terrible?

[Leafsnail]

Massively increase the deficit, help the super-rich at the expense of the middle-low incomes, etc.  Basically what you'd expect from a Republican tax proposal.

And apart from anything else, isn't having a massive tax spike well... stupid?  It can genuinely damage incentives.  If getting a pay rise would suddenly cause you to pay 15% more tax then maybe you'd want to avoid it.  Wheras with a smoother tax rate rise you'd take home more money for a greater salary in all cases, meaning you'd have an incentive to get a pay rise at any income level (although Republicans might maintain that the fact that you're losing 35% of it to tax would still magically demotivate you).

[Twi]

Massively increase the deficit, help the super-rich at the expense of the middle-low incomes, etc.  Basically what you'd expect from a Republican tax proposal.

Ah, that explains a lot.

[Aqizzar]

If getting a pay rise would suddenly cause you to pay 15% more tax then maybe you'd want to avoid it.  Wheras with a smoother tax rate rise you'd take home more money for a greater salary in all cases, meaning you'd have an incentive to get a pay rise at any income level (although Republicans might maintain that the fact that you're losing 35% of it to tax would still magically demotivate you).

Just for the record, that is not how tax rates work.  Getting a pay raise will never ever cause you to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes, that's what the "brackets" are all about.

I know you're probably just misinformed about that, but I meet people all the freakin' time who insist on believing the "getting a raise can cost you income because of taxes" myth, and reject any explanation to the contrary.

[Descan]

I think that was his point, because if I read it right they were losing some of the brackets.