I think they are just at a point where every single aspect of life has to be part of some culture war. And to turn everything into some culture war, you have to be on the opposite side of everyone.

So now you have people who can't just accept that a player had a serious injury on the field and made it. You have to deny it happened and claim they are evil. You have people who cheer on mass shooters. It's just a weird cult like atmosphere among some of these people.

I guess to follow-up, M&Ms dropped their "spokescandies" because some people on the right got mad they couldn't jerk off to them anymore.

I’m gonna need you to fill in some gaps here.

Tucker ranted about changes to the M&Ms candies in the commercials. He complained they made them less sexy and more inclusive. He had a weird obsession about the sexiness of cartoon candies.

Today Mars announced Maya Rudolph would replace the candies in commercials.

This is really insightful.

I wonder if they will blame the woke mob or does that only work one way?

Tucker Carlson Mocks M&Ms for 'Gender-Inclusive' Rebrand of Characters

Those quotes are real. It's kind of beyond parody at this point.

Love how his lawyer said they are going to appeal. DC is not a state, this was not an Arkansas(where he is from) jury. Yeah good luck with that

I LOLed at that also.

Here is an idea. You don't want to be tried in a jurisdiction that doesn't favor you demographically maybe don't commit crimes there?

holy shit this whole M&Ms thing is cringe

He was trying so hard to not say black.

I would recommend that if you are ever I. Court o. Serious federal charges, you hire a better lawyer than this.

Debates are nearly irrelevant in modern politics. They don't move the needle in the general. They have some importance in primaries, but not as much as they used to even there. Trump himself is very low on the charisma scale, so I don't get this assertion.


It depends on who runs, but right now I'd give DeSantis 3:1 odds at beating Trump and I think that's conservative. Unless I misunderstand you, I really don't get the nobody's knocking him from his pedestal bit. Of course they haven't; the last time he ran he was the incumbent president. Nobody's had a chance to yet. But what we have seen is his support and influence crumbling since that time. That's not to say he doesn't have any, but I see no reason to doubt the reporting that the biggest reason he's running is as a potential shield against indictments. Worked for Julius Caesar and it worked for Trump while he was President, no reason not to keep going for it. But it's not like everyone is just in love with DeSantis and that's why Trump is lower in the polls. He's losing support from his base, his overall unfavorables are lower than they have been since he was elected in '16, and his favorability among Republicans is in the 60s. It was in the high 80s/low 90s when he was President no matter what stupid, incompetent, or impeachable thing he did.

If DeSantis runs and Republicans nominate Trump, I'll post a thread which says in all caps 'I WAS WRONG' and eat as much crow as you want to dish at me :). I don't see it happening.

I see it the same. It seems most of Trump's supporters want someone else Trump enough to make them feel comfortable not voting for Trump. Right now that guy is DeSantis.

Because even his supporters have realized he's one of the biggest losers in modern political history. I've seen Trump diehards saying he's the GOP's Hillary. They blame dems for it (which is ironic), but they see him as too damaged to win a general election. I've seen some of the fringe-Q or Q-adjacents say he's a dem plant that was brought in to destroy the GOP.

Trump has his fans. He has his supporters. They love him. But they desperately want someone else to step into his shoes and unlike 2016 there will be other options.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think Trump has quite a bit of charisma, especially compared to DeSantis. I think once the electorate gets a longer view at him they will see his quite the one trick pony with his culture war issues. The broader base showed us during the midterms they really aren't interested in that stuff. Plays well in Florida but not sure it does nationally.

I think debates don't matter regarding policy, etc...but they sure as shit matter for soundbites, and Trump will absolutely annihilate DeSantis in that area. FFS Charlie Christ was able to.

If Trump can move just a little from his stolen election grievances and focus on his accomplishments in the first 3 years of his term along with the perceived Biden failures I think he picks up a lot of support.

Now one thing I will say is I was surprised DeSantis was slightly ahead of Trump on predictit, but maybe people are looking for value. I just think he is still the biggest presence in the party and get the nomination if he wants it. I hope he does, I think he will be easier to beat then anyone else the right runs out.

Emerson with a new poll. I know, polling, blah blah blah....

NATIONAL POLL

2024 GOP Primary@realDonaldTrump 55%@RonDeSantisFL 29%@Mike_Pence 6%@NikkiHaley 3%
Someone else 4%https://t.co/6YLAS68WnF pic.twitter.com/aLCmejfhkk

— Emerson College Polling (@EmersonPolling) January 24, 2023

NATIONAL POLL

2024 Hypothetical Match-ups@JoeBiden 41%@realDonaldTrump 44%
Someone else 10%
4% undecided@JoeBiden 40%@RonDeSantisFL 39%
Someone else 13%
9% undecidedhttps://t.co/6YLAS69udd

— Emerson College Polling (@EmersonPolling) January 24, 2023

Emerson is practically owned by Trump.

I’m not as confident as you, I’ll say good chance but not 3:1.

Forget crow, we need more FOFC’ers eating collard greens.

At least Trump hasn't gotten to Lake & Palmer yet.

What an unlucky man he is. With all the losing and everything.

These dudes can't get enough of fellating the Saudis. Like have an ounce of self respect.

Americans are safer because we didn’t label Saudi Arabia a pariah state. I never let the media bully me. Just b/c someone is a part-time stringer for WaPo doesn’t make their life more important than our military serving in dangerous places protecting us all. I never forgot that. https://t.co/jidmb6R6oU

— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) January 24, 2023

I didn't want to spill the secret, but the original Paul McCartney was actually killed by the COVID vaccine before finishing Sgt. Peppers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64404824

Sick irony considering Fox News created this guy. Even after Pelosi was attacked by throwing out all the conspiracies about the attack. This guy should be locked up forever. He clearly isn't sorry about what he did.

Paul Pelosi attacker David DePape makes chilling call to TV station: 'I'm so sorry I didn't get more of them'

Trump is about to have his first official challenger. Nikki Haley plans on announcing February 15th. I don't know how these anti-Trump, then pro-Trump, become credible anti-Trump again.

There's the scene in Boogie Nights where the bank is turning down Don Cheadle's character for a loan. And he's begging the loan officer--please, just tell me what to write on the application, and I'll write it. Just tell me whatever you want me to say, and I'll say it.

Hyper-pandering politicians always make me think of that scene. They are just broken people standing in front of the voters begging them "Please. I will say and do whatever you want."

I want to say I predicted this

I don't think Trump is going to seriously run, he's going to milk it and probably gum up the works for any front-runner and find some sleaze deal so he can stay in the spotlight while "supporting" them.

I can't wait til he Trump makes a "red dot" vs. headdress remark about Haley. Old people will eat that shit up.

I welcome anyone GOP candidate but Trump

Looking forward to the GOP infighting

She won’t make a primary.

I think that 2016 did not start as a serious campaign. He wanted to avoid prosecution and make money, and it really got out of control.

But, having had that power, he wants it back. I think that it kills him that he has to sit in his fake White House in Florida and pretend. I think that he is deadly serious about running this time.

Underrated, imo

He's clearly not seen the last Arizona election and is not familiar with the billionaire in California who has been keeping Trump afloat.

I think it's pretty easy. They profess their love and admiration for him but concentrate on his inability to win. He's past his prime. So they aren't really anti-Trump as much as pragmatists about how divisive he clearly is to moderates/independents who they need at least a portion of to win the election.

I’m here fir the nicknames and bullying. I wonder if it’ll be Slick Nikki or Tricky Nikki or Darling Nikki or something else.


And can we crop whatever just messed up this page?

I agree that she won't make it to the primary. She would have been a strong candidate pre-Trump. Now, she is not crazy enough no matter how much she tries.

I linked an article but it broke the page. Bulwark poll out saying 28% of republicans would go with Trump if he went independent.

What an absolute destructive force he has become.

I wonder if these 28% actually think Trump is so popular he can win as an independent, or are they just so indoctrinated in the cult the party doesn't matter.

HE wants a revenge tour. If he was to get reelected that is all it would be. There would be zero actual governing. It would be 100% vengeance and his base would eat it up while the country burns.

I would remind the forum that the number of people who say they would vote for a third party candidate is always much higher than people who actually vote 3rd party.

The two most popular candidates are always "3rd party" and "Generic opponent"

Yeah but we’ve never had a cult leader as a third party candidate. Hell, if even a small fraction of those people are honest it tanks the GOP. Even if he doesn’t run at all I wonder how many would write him in or just stay home.

Trump just isn't doing well in polling for a popular (with his party) former President. And what I've seen browsing popular conservative sites and talking to conservative family lines up with the Bulwark polls. They still like Trump, but deep down they know he isn't winning a general election so they want someone else.

I'd be shocked if he ran as a 3rd party candidate. He's mostly in this for the fundraising and the possibility of getting back into the White House and starting his revenge tour. As a 3rd party candidate he's admitting he can't win. He'd have to be desperate for cash to make that run imo.

Nikki Haley would have been a threat as a candidate pre-Trump, but she has no chance representing the party of racism, bigotry, and misogyny.

I will say it's going to be interesting to see who the evangelicals get behind. I'm assuming DeSantis simply because Trump has shown they're more about power and influence than any of their beliefs.

Interestingly, Don Jr. Released his first podcast today. He reportedly started with how well HE is polling for 2024.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

She locked up patron saint Dylan Roof and took down God's flag from the statehouse in South Carolina. She stands no chance with half their electorate.

And just to show how backwards Nikki Haley's state still is, this shirt is for sale at the local racist r us store just outside Greenville, SC. The parking lot was full when we drove past Saturday.

I don't think they see the irony.

I'm not sure what is dumber, MTG saying an elementary school in IL spent 5.1 billion in Covid funds on DEI training or DeSantis proposing a budget that eliminates the sales tax on gas stoves.

The GOP has nothing other than greivances.

Make no mistake, she knows it too, but she also knows a great way to grift for her retirement and this is all it is about, making a buck.

No doubt

In recent days I've regretted not jumping on the Trump merch train and setting up a stand on weekends in right wing parts here in washington state. I'd probably well on my way to retirement now.

The gas stove thing still blows my mind. They are bad for health. One government official mentioned in an offhand way that maybe we should discourage their use. And that is all it took for them to become a right wing cultural flashpoint. It’s amazing.

The Biden administration seriously needs to start using this against these wackos. Just start rumors about banning things you want people to use.

I hope they tell us to burn our pants, these things are driving me nuts.

The Simpsons - Don't You Hate Pants!? - YouTube

Like: "don't inject bleach, it will kill you".

Shes a cartoon character.

Lauren Boebert Dismayed Americans Only Own 46 Percent of World's Firearms

dola- she also was complaining that she was disarmed on 1/6 because of rules regarding firearms on the floor. She said the doors were shaking nd she didn't know what was on the other side and it was the first time she couldn't defend herself. Glad she is finally admitting it was a violent mob.

She has a point though. For all the shootings and stuff, you'd think we had at least 75%.

To Atocep's point, someone ought to use this type of stuff against the GOP. Like, pointing out that despite the fact the US owns less than half the guns, other nations don't seem to have the same issues we do with random mass shootings on the daily and asking the rhetorical question, "Gee, I wonder why?".

And that she would have shot Ashlee Babbitt given the opportunity.

See, this turning shit around on crazy people is really not that hard!

Pence calls for Social Security reform, private savings accounts

Not sure quite where to put this. It is almost cute in a way. Mike Pence is trying to gain some traction in the GOP pre-primary by floating wonky Social Security reform ideas. Like this is 1988 or something.

Personally I wish I could opt out of Social Security and get everything back I've put into it, plus interest.

So you're ok with little old ladies begging for food on the street corner?

or

What we really ought to do is completely cut people off from Medicare once they've reach the exact amount they've contributed. That ought to make for some panicky news media coverage. (knowing that the vast majority of people who live long enough will far outstrip the amount they've ever put in, and with no system that allows for the elderly to opt out of life, and the new standard of care is to prolong life at all costs, we should see interesting results in short order)

It's a debate to have.

But the GOP electorate is not the place to have it.

Pence had every opportunity to keep the GOP as a place where one could have high end policy discussions.

And, like so many others, he sat there while it went full MAGA.

He's not putting the genie back into the bottle.

If he decided to straddle the fence about going full anti-Trumper after being the subject of a mob assassination attempt on the grand idea of running for President on an old-style GOP platform, that's ... an odd and ineffectual decision.

In my mind one of the GOP's biggest victories over the last 50 years was convincing senior citizens that they were protectors of Social Security, while openly attacking the other corners of the safety net, so I am kind of dumbfounded that multiple GOP leaders keep trying to drag it into the limelight.

As a whole, people get far more out of SS than they put in.

I think it was in the early 2000’s where there was proposal to put some/part of SS into the stock market. I’m all for it but there needs to be a mechanism to prevent panic during a crash, recession etc. If we did this back then, we prob would have delayed the pending 2035-2040 crisis by X more years.

See, the funny thing is that pending crisis was supposed to be in 2010. Then 2020. I remember distinctly over and over again the claim that Social Security would be bankrupt in 10 years....in 1999.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

1999? I could swear I remember Reagan using it as a scare tactic.

Er, isn’t that when retirement age was changed, phased from 65 to 67?

I’ll probably be grandfathered in, so feel free to up it to 69.

To your point, things change. We did lose 900k+ of people currently/near eligible for SS so maybe Covid bought us some time.

Sounds like you guys are saying SS (or Medicare) isn’t really in trouble?

Social Security is in way more danger from Republicans than running out of funds. It is more a fear tactic than anything real.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

There are volumes of links that says SS will be only able to afford approx 75% by 2035-2040 if nothing is done. I’m pretty sure this is a fact regardless of party affiliation.

If your stance is something bipartisan will be done to shore it up, I agree. But the problem is very real and the shoring up will come at a ‘cost’ to many people e.g. delaying retirement age, increasing or eliminating payroll tax cap etc.

If you don’t think this is real, please post a link. I would be very interested in reading a different POV and rationale.

Nope, not interested in arguing with you about it. There are dozens of easy fixes, and the only real danger is the GOP purposely destroying it.

Literally the first link, when searching for "How to fix Social Security", from Forbes, no less: How To Fix Social Security – Forbes Advisor

And, as I know we've discussed here before, the most blindingly obvious of the fixes:


There are a wide range of fixes that can (and will) be done to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, but if you're expecting Congress to do something bipartisan about it now, when the problem is 10+ years in the future, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Speaking of bipartisanship, Republicans have been trying to privatize or eliminate the Social Security program since it was created. Don't be fooled by any GOP rhetoric that they want to fix Social Security, they want to eliminate it. Exactly how do you compromise with them to fix it, given that starting point?

And why? Well, the GOP has long been about shrinking or eliminating government programs they don't like, and their think tanks have long worked on strategy to do that, for example this piece, written by co-authors from Cato & Heritage.

The question, then, about what to do about the solvency of the Social Security program, is a philosophical one. Democrats who originally enacted the Social Security program, and Democrats now, believe in its utility as a way to ensure that people can retire in old age regardless of the economic success or failure of their working lives. Republicans believe that you should live off of what you were able to earn, save, and invest. One of these approaches leaves large parts of society behind, economically, and one doesn't. One greatly benefits high wage-earners, and one benefits all wage-earners. One dramatically increases wealth inequality and one doesn't. I could go on, but you can see the facts in black-and-white by looking at the median & mean retirement savings (not Social Security, obviously, but all other retirement vehicles like IRAs & 401ks) by net income, race, etc... here.

And don't believe the pablum about how individual investors could see a greater rate of return were they able to invest the money that would have gone to Social Security payroll taxes. Americans are, in general, financially illiterate. How many are going to put that money into the latest YOLO stock instead of an index fund? And let's say you make it like most 401k plans, with a staid selection of mutual funds, well, that'll benefit the very financial institutions who have been lobbying for social security privatization for decades (to say nothing of businesses wanting a back-door tax cut through the elimination of the payroll tax - of which they pay half). But, of course, if all that lost investment gains were really their concern, it could be easily remedied by putting the entire trust fund itself into an index fund. The fact that the GOP doesn't suggest this, of course, illustrates their real aims.

So, in conclusion, GrantDawg is correct. Republicans have long been attempting to kill Social Security and this latest round of fear-mongering over its future solvency is just another iteration. I mean, this is a party that currently looks A-OK with having the U.S. government default on their loans. You think they're legitimately interested in "fixing" Social Security? :D

I am all for raising the cap, but removing it all together is a hard pass for me. People who are super high earners, in the several millions should have to pay more, but I think if you make a few hundred thousand or a little more, especially in an area where the cost of living is higher, you shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but super high earners only pay more if the cap is removed. It's not a cap on how much tax you pay, but on how much of your income is subject to tax.

Currently, if I make $140,000, all of my income is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,360). Currently, if I make $2,500,000, only the first $142,800 I make is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,707).

Remove the cap and those tax numbers are $17,360 and $310,000, respectively.

It's pretty regressive.

dola, well - it is also a cap on how much tax you pay, but that's a byproduct of it being a cap on how much of your income is subject to tax.

Right. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. For us, starting the first paycheck of the year it is $900 less than the last one in December. So every month we get $1800 less until we reach the cap, roughly sometime in June-July ( I'm obviously rounding a bit but you get it). After that we basically get a $1800/month "raise."

I am fine with a higher cap and having to pay a bit more, but I would not be a fan of removing the cap all together as that would effect us financially. Not in any way we couldn't manage, but I feel like it would be a bit of a burden on the people who make good money, but not "vacation house in Vale" money.

does that make sense?

*Vail


;)

:hand: Obviously I'm not in that category...

Presumably Vail is in a vale, though, right?

Lathum - what if it was a progressive tax like income tax, with brackets & whatnot?

I agree there are fixes and it will get fixed before 2035’ish but dispute they are easy fixes.

An article I read said removing caps will fix 75% of the problem but less like 50% (?) if you give the ones taxed more benefits with their increased payroll taxes.

I do agree this is the one I would prioritize (e.g. increasing retirement age, reducing benefits, paying out of general fund).

Nope not a cult:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-say-rcna69060

So don't do it. Cap the defined benefit at whatever people who made $500,000+/year get (with adjustments for inflation, of course). Anyone making that kind of money has multiple other avenues to sock away money for retirement and you can be they're utilizing those.

So where will the remaining 25% (to maybe 35% if addl benefits up to $500k) gap come from?

We could solve a lot of problems by taking money from people and giving them no benefit in return. But it is completely and totally politically unrealistic. If you get rid of the cap and increase the benefit, you are still helping shore up Social Security, and you at least have some carrot you can use to try to market it to people.

Also, the people this would affect are people who make lots of money via wages and not investments or inheritance. The exact sort of highly-educated suburban high earners that have flocked to the Democrats recently.

You literally just described us. I would likely vote for a non MAGA republican over a dem who was going to take significantly more of my money with no added benefit in return.

I also think you need to factor in cost of living. A Walmart exec who lives in Fayetteville gets a lot more for their 500K/year than a tech exe living in San Fran or NYC.

I don't think the numbers work out as simply as that.

I've now posted the history of GOP efforts to both kill and scare-monger over social security, and shown with detail and links, why it is not in imminent danger. If you want me to continue to respond to your assertions based off a cursory skimming of headlines, then bring some meat to the table.

You say this as if it doesn't already happen. Plenty of my tax money goes towards things from which I get no benefit.

If you want to argue that it's politically not possible, that's fine, but I wasn't making that point. Maybe I should be more clear:

1. The potential scenario where the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money is 10+ years away. There is no crisis now and if you want to believe that the GOP really has a good-faith effort underway to resolve said future crisis, then this is where we part ways.

2. There are a large number of variables that go into the run down of that Trust Fund, so much so that its demise has been predicted for a wide variety of dates over the past 40 years since Reagan & Co started publicly harping on it (the GOP having decided by that point -- see my links -- that it wasn't going to be possible to kill it in one go).

3. There are a variety of fixes that could be implemented in combination to avert the crisis, should it ever look imminent. All require some sacrifice of some group of Americans. Should a crisis become imminent, I suspect the fixes that will be implemented will likely be those which target the least electorally important of those groups.

Your Forbes link says this


And then


Don’t know your definition of ‘imminent’ but your article’s ‘in the next decade’ timetable sure sounds imminent to me. It is in danger as evidenced by Forbes detailing what the possible fixes are and adverse impacts to groups of people.

In a reality-based world where Congress often won't pass a budget until after government shutdowns and one party is fine letting the country default on its debts to score political points, something that may or may not happen in 10+ years is not, by any reasonable definition of the word, "imminent".

Here are four proposals with overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Congress that completely eliminate the potential shortfall:



To go back to what started this: this potential situation is absolutely solvable. One party, who wants to eliminate Social Security altogether, stands in the way of such a solution. Which is why, again, this is a) a fake crisis brought on by the GOP who wants to scare-monger the public into making changes that will end Social Security and b) thus means that Social Security is in far more danger of said GOP destroying it (as they have tried to many times before) than actually becoming insolvent.

Unless, of course, you want to tell me that the GOP of, say, 2030, decides that the best way to get rid of Social Security is to let it go insolvent and that they'd survive that, electorally.

How about AARP?

Updating Social Security for the 21st Century: 12 Proposals You Should...

Specifically on how eliminating payroll tax cap will only account for 71% of funding gap.


AARP lists options, just like Forbes. Both acknowledges there will be a problem.

I don’t think anyone believes it won’t be solved. The question is how and who gets the pain. Just because it’s solvable doesn’t mean it’s not a crisis. My orig quote is below.

It's not a crisis. The program has been modified several times over its history to shore up its long-term financial health.

If it's 2030 and the actuarial projections still show depletion in 2034 and the GOP still has functional control over Congress then it will be a crisis.

But it is not a real crisis right now. It's a manufactured crisis, done so to allow the GOP to put forward proposals that will definitely result in its long-term demise. Which was the original point of this tangent.

Stop being so credulous when reading headlines, Edward.

]
Your bipartisanship support outside of congress is not a real poll but a game simulation (?) and therefore does not represent truly how regular citizens believe or would support


I find it hard to believe there would be overwhelming support for 3 of your listed 4 proposals (reduce benefits for high earners is the possible exception).

Okay. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on what imminent and crisis means in the context of the SS forthcoming gap circa approx 2035.

So, that's 2 of 4 (including your potential exception) and here's a poll showing support for a gradual but whole elimination of the payroll tax cap, making it 3 of 4.

The only one not covered is raising the retirement age, but of the 4 proposals, it's actually the only one that's been done, historically, so it's certainly possible to do it.

Again, eminently solvable and not a crisis.

I will accept your capitulation, which, as in the past, is signaled by the abandonment of arguing on the merits and retreating to dictionary definitions.

We have managed to have a more intelligent discussion on this topic on a football video game message board then Mike Pence will ever get the GOP electorate to have amongst itself.