US Presidential Election 2016: Sidney's Victory Lap

[Sidney]

But that’s entirely within the rules. I know you like rules, when they suit you.

I think you’ll find that all those protests you think were about changing the result, were in fact not about changing the result at all.

But do carry on.

[Tim_Riggins]

@Sidney

But that’s entirely within the rules. I know you like rules, when they suit you.

I think you’ll find that all those protests you think were about changing the result, were in fact not about changing the result at all.

But do carry on.

Where in the link about, did I mention protests? You are determined to pivot back to protests for some reason. I posted a petition which asked Electoral College members not to accept the result of their State and what would create an unprecedented crisis in American democracy and you just desperately deflect. You asked for some people, I gave them to you, 562k of them.

[Tim_Riggins]

Jeremy W. Peters (jwpetersNYT)

Interesting

[Sidney]

@Tim_Riggins

Where in the link about, did I mention protests? You are determined to pivot back to protests for some reason. I posted a petition which asked Electoral College members not to accept the result of their State and what would create an unprecedented crisis in American democracy and you just desperately deflect. You asked for some people, I gave them to you, 562k of them.

You do understand that 20 states have laws that allow their Electoral College representatives to vote for whoever they want?

You do understand that in a democracy, people can lobby for whatever they want?

This is simple stuff.

[Tim_Riggins]

@Sidney

You do understand that 20 states have laws that allow their Electoral College representatives to vote for whoever they want?

You do understand that in a democracy, people can lobby for whatever they want?

This is simple stuff.

You asked me to point out people who don’t accept the result, I gave them to you.

There is no precedent in US election history for Electoral College voters to ignore the wishes of the States that voted. It isn’t relevant however to people not accepting the result.

As a matter of fact, it is over 4.5 million people now.

Petition unterschreiben

[Sidney]

So you’re not answering my questions?

[Tim_Riggins]

Your questions aren’t relevant. You asked who isn’t accepting the result, I gave you a large petition which aims to ignore the result of an election.

Your consistent efforts to pivot when you’re caught out are tedious at this point.

[ProjectX]

@Matty_Hislop

That’s the height of your debating skills alright.

I gave that a like because it hurts me so bad

[ProjectX]

@Sidney

So you’re not answering my questions?

You’re still here? Keep your word and retire your loser account

[Sidney]

@Tim_Riggins

Your questions aren’t relevant. You asked who isn’t accepting the result, I gave you a large petition which aims to ignore the result of an election.

They are relevant, Tim. They’re extremely relevant.

I know you never think something’s relevant when it doesn’t suit your agenda.

Do you utilise this technique in court much, or do you just stick to telling people to “STFU”?

[Tim_Riggins]

@Sidney

They are relevant, Tim. They’re extremely relevant.

I know you never think something’s relevant when it doesn’t suit your agenda.

Do you utilise this technique in court much, or do you just stick to telling people to “STFU”?

No, you should only “STFU” when you refuse to actually debate, like on the Commonwealth thread (which I note you’ve run from as soon as you actually started putting forward points).

It isn’t relevant as what you asked was for me to show you people not ACCEPTING the result. That is what they are doing. There is no precedent in US electoral history for a wide cabal of Electoral College voters in States overturning the wishes of their States votes and upending accepted American democracy.

Discussing the merits of the electoral college is fair. Giving out about 2000 is fair (and even '60). But signing a petition to overturn US electoral history is simply not accepting the result of an Election all candidates fought on the same basis.

[Sidney]

@Tim_Riggins

No, you should only “STFU” when you refuse to actually debate, like on the Commonwealth thread (which I note you’ve run from as soon as you actually started putting forward points).

It isn’t relevant as what you asked was for me to show you people not ACCEPTING the result. That is what they are doing. There is no precedent in US electoral history for a cabal of Electoral College voters in States overturning the wishes of their States votes.

Discussing the merits of the electoral college is fair. Giving out about 2000 is fair (and even '60). But signing a petition to overturn US electoral history is simply not accepting the result of an Election all candidates fought on the same basis.

I put up a comprehensive piece on the merits of the electoral college over a week ago, mate.

You have to accept that there are people who don’t accept the result (of which I’m not one) , which is their right.

If you want to moan about people moaning, fine, but accept that automatically makes you a hypocrite and guilty of the exact same thing you’re complaining about.

In fact you’re worse - you’re telling these people what to think - they’re not telling you what to think.

It’s really simple.

Also, if you tell people, to “STFU”, don’t be surprised you’re ridiculed about “not debating”.

Such anger, such little sense.

[anon7035031]

It’s quite revealing that the nutter wing of the Democratic party are focused on their perceived unfairness of the electoral system, rather than the reasons they lost the election. This is the same electoral system that gave Obama an overwhelming majority in 2012, so perhaps , just perhaps, it’s not the system that caused Hillary to lose.

Democrats lost the election because they have lost touch with working people across the country. Whether they are defined as working class or middle class is irrelevant, the simple fact is that the average working person is earning the same as they did 20 years ago, and likely working longer hours as the quality of jobs has declined, while their costs have skyrocketed. The hope and change promised by Obama turned out to be just empty rhetoric. The only person talking about changing anything that would improve their outlook was Trump, while Hillary was focused on calling them deplorables, racists and sexists.

It’s truly remarkable that so many liberals cannot grasp this simple fact.

[Sidney]

@anon7035031

the simple fact is that the average working person is earning the same as they did 20 years ago, and likely working longer hours as the quality of jobs has declined,

And yet you want to accelerate the policies that led to that.

What should we do to fix the problem? “More of the same!”

To use your own words, it’s truly remarkable you cannot grasp this simple fact.

[anon7035031]

You’ve doubled down on your ignorance now.

The policies that led to the loss of higher quality jobs and the destruction of the middle class were supported by both political parties. The repeal of Glass Seagal allowing banks do what they liked was signed into law by Bill Clinton, as was NAFTA and other trade agreements. The vote for Trump wasn’t a vote for Republican over Democratic policies, it was a vote against both party’s policies which have led to the decline in US manufacturing and US business investment.

Whether Trump can deliver on his promises is debatable, but to say they are “more of the same” is based on complete ignorance of the underlying economic issues. For example changing the corporate tax rate from its existing 39% to 15% is not “more of the same”, not when the existing tax structure 1. incentivizes US companies to move their profit centers offshore and keep their cash offshore rather than reinvesting it in the US, and 2. Disincentivizes small businesses to invest, as it just isn’t worth it.

[Tim_Riggins]

@Tim_Riggins

It’s pretty hilarious that for all the “will Trump accept the result” pre election that we have so many people refusing to accept this one.

@Sidney

Such as?

@Sidney

You have to accept that there are people who don’t accept the result (of which I’m not one) , which is their right

What the hell have you been arguing about so? You really are a bizarre character.

[Sidney]

@anon7035031

Republicans continue to marginalize themselves with each passing day. The irony is that a huge number of the 47% that Romney referred to are poor white Americans mainly in the Midwest and South who traditionally vote Republican. Someday the penny may drop for them but I’m not so sure. The Republican party is now the party of stupid and has been since Bush 2 was elected. Whether they like it or not the country is moving to the center (it has always been right of center) and policies like tax breaks for the rich, a war on women’s rights, denying equal rights for gays, more military adventures, etc. are not going to get you elected in 2012.

@anon7035031

White people tend to vote Republican because they favor the economic policies of Republicans, as any sensible middle class person would.

That’s quite a journey you’ve come on. From “the party of stupid” to “the party of sensible”.

Ridiculing tax breaks for the rich in 2012, eulogising them now.

One could say you’re confused if being charitable, or being more realistic, one could say you don’t know your arse from elbow when it comes to economics.

[anon7035031]

Typical Sidney, when you have your ass handed to you, trolling through years of posts to try and find a contradiction, the debating tactics of a beaten docket.

You still don’t get it. I pointed out in 2012 that the Republican party had lost touch with the average working American, and I am now pointing out that the Democratic party has done the same. Trump was elected because both parties have ignored the economic realities of working people.

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between corporate tax and individual tax, or between tax rate and tax break. I don’t have time to educate you, but in short tax rates should encourage investment and consumption, tax breaks encourage the opposite. Can you get your head around that distinction?

[Sidney]

I get it perfectly, mate.

You’re arguing here for the same exact same trickle down policies you were previously arguing against.

That’s a 180 degree flip flop.

That’s what Trump offers. Have a listen to his economic adviser Stephen Moore talking, it’s on Marian Finucane 8 days ago. The exact same philosophy as Bush - tax cuts for the rich, abolition of financial regulation.

Accept it when you’ve had you’re arse handed to you in such an obvious fashion.

[anon7035031]

You simply haven’t a clue. This will be my last response of the day, as I have work to attend to.

Simply reducing marginal tax rates on individuals does very little, as wealthy individuals tend to save rather than spend. Let’s say you are a very wealthy individual with for arguments’s sake, $100M, here are your legal options under the current US system:

1. Move it all offshore, invest in a basket of assets, make say 5% a year in returns and pay nothing in taxes. There is about $21 trillion in offshore accounts, so do the math. Ironically, a large component of the tax evaders are celebrities who claim to be liberals, think U2.

2. Keep the money in the US, invest in a basket of assets, make 5% return annually, and pay a reduced tax rate of 20% (current long term capital gain rate).

3. Invest the money in starting a business, invest your time and energy in the business, pay salaries, workers comp, health insurance, state and local taxes, regulatory costs, and then pay 39% on any profit you make.

Do the math, which would you choose? The current system rewards tax avoidance and does nothing to encourage business investment in the US. That’s why tax reform needs to be comprehensive, and focused on business investment.