Asura.Kingnobody said: »
so many shallow people in this country....
It doesn't have anything to do with country. That's a core human response. That happens everywhere, always has, likely always will.
Where is it that you think this isn't happening?
Trump Talk™
Trump Talk™
It doesn't have anything to do with country. That's a core human response. That happens everywhere, always has, likely always will.
Where is it that you think this isn't happening?
[+]
Drama Torama said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
so many shallow people in this country....
It doesn't have anything to do with country. That's a core human response. That happens everywhere, always has, likely always will.
Where is it that you think this isn't happening?
South Korea
Japan
Russia
India
China
Just to name a few off the top of my head.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
And Kennedy's religion certainly was an issue in that election.
[+]
Chanti, I know you are trolling, but do you have to make it so obvious?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Chanti, I know you are trolling, but do you have to make it so obvious?
How is that trolling? It's the truth.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
color of one's skin
Again, it has nothing to do with skin color specifically. That's just one data point. You're either being willfully thick or trolling, and I don't care which.
Candidates have always been about more than a pile of policy points, and no one who follows politics as closely as you do can be blind to that unless you are choosing to be.
[+]
Drama Torama said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Chanti, I know you are trolling, but do you have to make it so obvious?
How is that trolling? It's the truth.
Religion is it's own factor, and not a shallow point because religion has a strong influence when it comes to decision-making ability. You know, morals and all that.
While Kennedy's religion played a part of people's decision, just because he was an Irish Catholic doesn't mean he wasn't white, they are not mutually exclusive.
Drama Torama said: »
Again, it has nothing to do with skin color specifically. That's just one data point. You're either being willfully thick or trolling, and I don't care which.
Candidates have always been about more than a pile of policy points, and no one who follows politics as closely as you do can be blind to that unless you are choosing to be.
Candidates have always been about more than a pile of policy points, and no one who follows politics as closely as you do can be blind to that unless you are choosing to be.
I guess we are having two different arguments, but I don't know how much clearer I can be...
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
just because he was an Irish Catholic doesn't mean he wasn't white
Seriously, it was not an uncommon position that the Irish weren't really white. His ethnicity was absolutely a topic of discussion, as was his religion. This is all pretty well documented stuff.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
I guess we are having two different arguments
I think we are, except that I'm trying to explain that race factoring in isn't some wild new paradigm shift; it's just a new data point for something that was already happening with other traits.
It all comes back to the "electability" concept, which doesn't operate in the world of "should". No one reasonably disputes that candidates should be chosen for policy points, but this all comes back to the argument for Rubio being that he's more electable than others purely because of demographic reasons (I don't know anything about his policy positions, and they don't matter to this piece of the argument). It's not that he should be more electable, it's that he is.
[+]
Electability was clearly a factor in the 1960 election just going by the response to the first televised debates.
Jassik said: »
Electability was clearly a factor in the 1960 election just going by the response to the first televised debates.
Many people think the whole likability thing in the 1960 debate was due to Kennedy's physical appearance vs. Nixon's, but not everyone agrees. This is obviously not the best of sources, but here's what Cracked.com has to say about it.
5 Famous Pieces of Presidential Trivia (That Are Total BS)
Article text in spoiler:
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jassik said: »
Electability was clearly a factor in the 1960 election just going by the response to the first televised debates.
Many people think the whole likability thing in the 1960 debate was due to Kennedy's physical appearance vs. Nixon's, but not everyone agrees. This is obviously not the best of sources, but here's what Cracked.com has to say about it.
5 Famous Pieces of Presidential Trivia (That Are Total BS)
Article text in spoiler:
I don't put much faith in poll numbers, anyway, but you can't deny that Nixon comes across as cold and unlikable in that debate. He had never been in a televised debate like that before, refused makeup, and was sweating profusely. It turned a lot of people off.
OK King, I was using white rhetorically.
There was a time when WASP was used as we use white today. In the 1880s anyone who wasn't WASP was looked down upon. This includes Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians, Jews, Greeks, Turks, and many more besides who today are counted as white.
You can find this enshrined in older immigration laws.
The Emergency Quota Act 1921, the more restrictive National Origins Formula in the Immigration Act of 1924, and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. All of these attempt to maintain the racial balance of our country. And those words "racial balance" refer to what today we call national origin.
Kennedy's Irish Catholicism was, at the time, both religious and racial. To many it was simply religious but to others it was both.
There was a time when WASP was used as we use white today. In the 1880s anyone who wasn't WASP was looked down upon. This includes Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians, Jews, Greeks, Turks, and many more besides who today are counted as white.
You can find this enshrined in older immigration laws.
The Emergency Quota Act 1921, the more restrictive National Origins Formula in the Immigration Act of 1924, and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. All of these attempt to maintain the racial balance of our country. And those words "racial balance" refer to what today we call national origin.
Kennedy's Irish Catholicism was, at the time, both religious and racial. To many it was simply religious but to others it was both.
And back to the Donald!
The importance of Donald Trump
New York Magazine - Frank Rich
Way too long to post. Well worth reading.
The importance of Donald Trump
New York Magazine - Frank Rich
Quote:
Far from destroying our democracy, he’s exposing all its phoniness and corruption in ways as serious as he is not. And changing it in the process.
A good article on the "Catholic problems" of 100 - 150 years ago from Politico.
When America Hated Catholics
In the late 19th century, statesmen feared that Catholic immigrants were less than civilized (and less than white).
First paragraph:
Its a good and accurate read.
When America Hated Catholics
In the late 19th century, statesmen feared that Catholic immigrants were less than civilized (and less than white).
First paragraph:
Quote:
In the late nineteenth century, political cartoonist Thomas Nast regularly lambasted Irish Catholic immigrants as drunkards and barbarians unfit for citizenship; signs that read, “No Irish Need Apply,” lined shop windows in Boston and New York and dotted the classified pages in many of the country’s leading papers; statesmen warned about the dangers of admitting Catholics from Southern and Eastern Europe onto American shores, for fear that they were something less than civilized (and less than white). It wasn’t unusual for respectable politicians to wonder aloud whether Catholics could be loyal to their adoptive country and to the Pope....
Donald Trump’s tax plan costs $12 trillion, according to analysis
MSNBC but other articles on this are everywhere.
MSNBC but other articles on this are everywhere.
Quote:
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire’s pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal.
The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates’ tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.
In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump, whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.
The findings strongly contradict Trump’s campaign rhetoric, where he’s repeatedly boasted about his willingness to raise taxes on well-off Americans like himself in order to help others. On Tuesday, Trump said his plan would “cost me a fortune” at his press conference unveiling it.
For perspective, the same group pegged the cost of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s tax plan at $3.66 trillion, Sen. Marco Rubio’s at over $4 trillion and Sen. Rand Paul’s flat tax proposal at roughly $3 trillion.
The analysis acknowledged that details of Trump’s plan were still vague, requiring them to make some approximate guesses, but added that the overall size was largely driven by the deep cuts in rates. Trump’s plan would lower the top tax bracket for wealthier Americans to 25% from 39.5% today and the top corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% today, which it would partially offset with some changes to deductions. Trump has also claimed his plan would add some 31 million households to the substantial number of Americans who pay no money — or gain money through credits — in income tax, bringing the total to 75 million filers.
A white paper by Trump outlining his tax plan on Monday claimed that it “doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large,” a claim that conservative and progressive economists alike cast doubt on.
Trump, like other Republican candidates, claimed that his plan would offset its cost by encouraging further growth. The Tax Foundation also scored it using a model that assumes supply side conservative theories of economic growth are correct and found it still would add $10.14 trillion to the deficit.
The Trump campaign pushed back against the findings on Tuesday, claiming the organization underestimated the amount of revenue Trump would raise to offset its cuts.
“They seem to largely ignore most of the plan’s pay-fors, but even accounting for that, their figures seem wildly off the mark,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told MSNBC in an e-mail. “Especially compared to how they scored similar provisions for Jeb Bush’s plan.”
Shortly after the estimate dropped, Bush jabbed Trump on Twitter for the proposal’s cost, but also for employing a similar structure to his own reform plan.
“Finally saw Donald’s ‘tax plan,’” Bush wrote. “Looks familiar! I’m flattered. But he should’ve stuck with growth & fiscal responsibility.”
Despite Trump’s gigantic net tax cut, influential conservative leader Grover Norquist said on Tuesday that he took issue with Trump’s plan because it requires hedge fund managers to pay slightly more in taxes by closing the carried interest loophole, a change he derided as “a shiny bauble conceived in left-wing academia.”
This is a relatively minor feature of the plan, however. The Congressional Budget Office estimates ending the carried interest provision would raise just $17 billion over 10 years. As the Tax Foundation analysis indicates, this small change would be dwarfed by the trillions of dollars in cuts proposed by Trump, some of which — like a reduction in the top capital gains tax rate — would directly benefit wealthy investors.
The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates’ tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.
In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump, whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.
The findings strongly contradict Trump’s campaign rhetoric, where he’s repeatedly boasted about his willingness to raise taxes on well-off Americans like himself in order to help others. On Tuesday, Trump said his plan would “cost me a fortune” at his press conference unveiling it.
For perspective, the same group pegged the cost of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s tax plan at $3.66 trillion, Sen. Marco Rubio’s at over $4 trillion and Sen. Rand Paul’s flat tax proposal at roughly $3 trillion.
The analysis acknowledged that details of Trump’s plan were still vague, requiring them to make some approximate guesses, but added that the overall size was largely driven by the deep cuts in rates. Trump’s plan would lower the top tax bracket for wealthier Americans to 25% from 39.5% today and the top corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% today, which it would partially offset with some changes to deductions. Trump has also claimed his plan would add some 31 million households to the substantial number of Americans who pay no money — or gain money through credits — in income tax, bringing the total to 75 million filers.
A white paper by Trump outlining his tax plan on Monday claimed that it “doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large,” a claim that conservative and progressive economists alike cast doubt on.
Trump, like other Republican candidates, claimed that his plan would offset its cost by encouraging further growth. The Tax Foundation also scored it using a model that assumes supply side conservative theories of economic growth are correct and found it still would add $10.14 trillion to the deficit.
The Trump campaign pushed back against the findings on Tuesday, claiming the organization underestimated the amount of revenue Trump would raise to offset its cuts.
“They seem to largely ignore most of the plan’s pay-fors, but even accounting for that, their figures seem wildly off the mark,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told MSNBC in an e-mail. “Especially compared to how they scored similar provisions for Jeb Bush’s plan.”
Shortly after the estimate dropped, Bush jabbed Trump on Twitter for the proposal’s cost, but also for employing a similar structure to his own reform plan.
“Finally saw Donald’s ‘tax plan,’” Bush wrote. “Looks familiar! I’m flattered. But he should’ve stuck with growth & fiscal responsibility.”
Despite Trump’s gigantic net tax cut, influential conservative leader Grover Norquist said on Tuesday that he took issue with Trump’s plan because it requires hedge fund managers to pay slightly more in taxes by closing the carried interest loophole, a change he derided as “a shiny bauble conceived in left-wing academia.”
This is a relatively minor feature of the plan, however. The Congressional Budget Office estimates ending the carried interest provision would raise just $17 billion over 10 years. As the Tax Foundation analysis indicates, this small change would be dwarfed by the trillions of dollars in cuts proposed by Trump, some of which — like a reduction in the top capital gains tax rate — would directly benefit wealthy investors.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
MSNBC but other articles on this are everywhere.
I mean, we all know you only look at fluff and no substance, but if you actually post the analysis instead of the analysis of the analysis, you might seem, you know, a little more educated.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Drama Torama said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
so many shallow people in this country....
It doesn't have anything to do with country. That's a core human response. That happens everywhere, always has, likely always will.
Where is it that you think this isn't happening?
South Korea
Japan
Russia
India
China
Just to name a few off the top of my head.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh god, you're serious? Japan had a big *** stink because a half black / half japanese woman was Miss Japan and you believe people vote purely on policy?
People are narrowminded *** in their purest form. Education may help to blunt much of the irrational stupidity that passes for brain function but ultimately people have biases that are difficult to overcome especially when nationalism comes into play.
Trying to say those countries are magical tolerance spheres is ludicrous. India just had some guy murdered for eating beef. Go India!
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
The MSNBC piece seemed complete enough.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
The MSNBC piece seemed complete enough.
Because your very source actually linked the original source you could have used.
Like I said before, all you care about is fluff and no substance. Now it's obvious you don't even read what you post.
[+]
In stupid news:
Trump: If I win, I’ll send Syrian refugees back
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says if he takes the White House, he will send back Syrian refugees coming to the U.S.
“I’m putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration,” he told an audience in Keene, N.H.
“If I win, they’re going back. They’re going back. I’m telling you. They’re going back.”
Trump last week accused his GOP rivals of seeking to “start World War III over Syria.”
He suggested at the time that the U.S. should let Russia take up the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Trump: If I win, I’ll send Syrian refugees back
Quote:
YouTube Video Placeholder
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says if he takes the White House, he will send back Syrian refugees coming to the U.S.
“I’m putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration,” he told an audience in Keene, N.H.
“If I win, they’re going back. They’re going back. I’m telling you. They’re going back.”
Trump last week accused his GOP rivals of seeking to “start World War III over Syria.”
He suggested at the time that the U.S. should let Russia take up the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
I'm sure most of you, my American friends, probably watched this, but it's too funny not to share:
YouTube Video Placeholder
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
You can report it and have it removed if mods agree with you.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
Half of the thread is internet memes and fone posting Simpsons clips, bud.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
...so is The Onion.
[+]
that was actually very bad, worst ive seen lol
Ragnarok.Zeig said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
You can report it and have it removed if mods agree with you.
It is about as accurate as Brian Williams.
Despite being shown over and over to be more factual than actual news shows, nobody mistakes it for news, and don't pretend they do.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ragnarok.Zeig said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Hate to break it to you, but that's not a newscast. You shouldn't believe anything that comes from a channel called Comedy Central...
You can report it and have it removed if mods agree with you.
It is about as accurate as Brian Williams.
What in that 8min clip was a lie?
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.