***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[brian8598]

I’d love to share a video I found on the deep state on my Parler account but NT won’t allow it bc of liberal ideologies. Basically the deep state is everywhere. Even Lebron James is a part of it now. Why else would he sign that extension now? So he cam donate to Warnock, a colored senator. Wake up Brian!

I can only hope that you're not serious, but I wish you well regardless.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Georgia isn't turning unless this happened. Arizona isn't turning unless this happened.

I guess well find out as we get more data but.


from what ive read black voter share didn't really increase.

and biden flipped suburban republicans and moderates.


The tipping point state was Wisconsin and Milwaukee turnout was down.



so i literally don't understand how 2016 trump wins because of Obama-Trump swing voters and 2020 Biden wins because of GOP suburban defections
and conclude swing voters aren't real.

but if you have different data id love to see it.

 

[marikomorose]

I would love to buy this, but she needs a better designer. Someone give AOC my screen name:

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I would love to buy this, but she needs a better designer. Someone give AOC my screen name:

now this is a slogan i can get behind

 

[dacomeup]

EXACTLY!

I don't agree, spend more money on good policing practices.

But why do we need to dump more money on that, when we should redirect money towards the ills of poverty which largely are responsible for the crime anyways? These white suburbs aren’t highly policed in this manner, there’s just less poverty, more programs for kids, better education, etc.

 

[Belgium]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

But why do we need to dump more money on that, when we should redirect money towards the ills of poverty which largely are responsible for the crime anyways? These white suburbs aren’t highly policed in this manner, there’s just less poverty, more programs for kids, better education, etc.

because better policing decreases crime in the near term.


and I think people who live in high crime areas would benefit from reduced crime, and better more and just policing.

eliminating all poverty is a tougher long term lift. (spend money on that also)

 

[junglejim]

1. I mean given the fiscal shortfalls from the pandemic, were going to get defund the police anyways unless biden can get state and lcoal aid.
but in a normal political environment, you look at the polling, and cutting the police budgets is very unpopular.


2. i didn't say raise the **** out of everyones taxes, there is such a thing as progressive income tax.

3. Im not here to argue about the slogan, I think it's bad idea period and solves nothing.

1. Agreed

2. Property taxes and sales taxes are not progressive, so again, you do not understand how our tax system works and municipalities are funded. They are a percentage tax on spending/property value. State income taxes are largely progressive. Some states have a fixed rate income tax and just recently voted to use a progressive income tax so they could raise revenue but such proposal did not pass (see Illinois) because again, tax rate increases are a largely unpopular proposal, even moreso than "defunding the police". The fact of the matter is people don't understand how the tax system works so they are unlikely to vote for changes to it because they automatically assume a change is going to lead to higher taxes for them unless someone specifically campaigns on cutting taxes.

3. You provided nothing as an alternative solution other than wholly unrealistic ideas and proposals which would be even more unpopular. People arrived that that slogan because it is quite literally the only viable option in the current political climate to fund new local programs in some of these cities. I agree with your point that the slogan is stupid on a federal level, but only because these senate and house candidates don't have a ton of say in how local city governments work so they are campaigning on an unpopular idea which they have little to no control over. I agree that its unpopular but its far more popular than "the tax man cometh to raise the ****eth out of your taxes"

 

[junglejim]

there is such a thing as progressive income tax, and their is such a thing as deficit financed federal aid of good public programs.

all better ideas than defunding the police.

progressive income taxes are typically levied on a state level, not a city level. Most police budgets are funded by property taxes and sales taxes, both of which are not progressive income taxes as they are typically levied on a fixed rate based on the value of something bought/owned so yes, you are saying to increase taxes on almost everyone, you just don't know enough about how taxes are levied to know the difference.

Progressive income tax proposals are also largely unpopular. See Illinois for further details.

I am yet to hear how someone in a non-blue state is going to get elected to the senate and house to vote on a proposal to send large amounts of federal funding to overwhelmingly blue cities across the country. "If you elect me to represent North Carolina I'll send a bunch of federal money to New York City and Los Angeles to increase their police departments" sound like one hell of a popular slogan.

 

[dacomeup]

because better policing decreases crime in the near term.


and I think people who live in high crime areas would benefit from reduced crime, and better more and just policing.

eliminating all poverty is a tougher long term lift. (spend money on that also)

How simple is "better policing"? We have a systemic racism/inequality problem. What does better policing entail?

And eliminating all poverty being a tougher long term lift shouldn't be a deterrent. Wealth inequality is worsening. That should be an immediate focus.

 

[RustyShackleford]

how is it that "Biden won because Black and Brown people turned out in massive numbers"

when the share of black vote seems to have declined in many swing states and majority black counties?

Because that is not how statistics work

aepps20 said a population increase in size and your pushback was a shift in the ratio. He is looking at the numerator, you the denominator

Crude example, to show my point.

If a county has 100 voters usually. 60 being white, and 40 being black, then the black share of the electorate is 40%. If an election comes along and there are 130 white voters, and 70 black voters, then the black share of the electorate is 35%. Black turnout surged, but a surge in white turnout made them a smaller share of the electoral.

If one candidate depends on 90% of the black vote. He probably benefits from the 27 additional voters, even if the black share of the electorate decreased.

So more black voters going to the polls in higher numbers, and them being a lower share of the electorate are not mutually exclusive. That why I said it doesn't really disprove his point.

Tons of things lead to Biden's win. Yes him flipping suburbs, but if turnout among Latinos and black people didn't increase as it did, he probably loses even with those flips.

And to that further, like Cohn pointed out, there could be some major measurement happening because of migration. Migration patterns of racial groups are not something you can track in a short time frame.

Just like the suburbs are not turning blue just because Republicans are flipping to Dem, but migration into the suburbs is changing the demographic make-up of the suburbs making it more friendly to Democrats. Like black voters could have moved out of the urban areas into the burbs at a higher clip. Lower turnout in one area, and helping turn another area blue.

But these are just theories, at this point in time, we don't know. Census data doesn't track these figures very quickly and most state demographers don't look into such things.

 

[junglejim]

How simple is "better policing"? We have a systemic racism/inequality problem. What does better policing entail?

And eliminating all poverty being a tougher long term lift shouldn't be a deterrent. Wealth inequality is worsening. That should be an immediate focus.

Plus you can have better policing without increasing funding. Getting rid of police unions and qualified immunity would be a start.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

1. Agreed

2. Property taxes and sales taxes are not progressive, so again, you do not understand how our tax system works and municipalities are funded. They are a percentage tax on spending/property value. State income taxes are largely progressive. Some states have a fixed rate taxed and just recently voted to use a progressive income tax so they could raise revenue but such proposal did not pass (see Illinois) because again, tax rate increases are a largely unpopular proposal, even moreso than "defunding the police".

3. You provided nothing as an alternative solution other than wholly unrealistic ideas and proposals which would be even more unpopular. People arrived that that slogan because it is quite literally the only viable option in the current political climate to fund new local programs in some of these cities. I agree with your point that the slogan is stupid on a federal level, but only because these senate and house candidates don't have a ton of say in how local city governments work so they are campaigning on an unpopular idea which they have little to no control over. I agree that its unpopular but its far more popular than "the tax man cometh to raise the ****eth out of your taxes"

2. yes i meant "progressive taxation" not progressive income tax. i quickly edited that mistake in my original post.

3. I did. this literally happened in 1994 crime bill, it had funding for local policing in it. so given that it's actually happened before i think it more plausible than something that hasn't happened and is very unpopular polling wise.


and it's obviously not the only viable option.
and i sincerely doubt that defund the police slogan came about from combing through state and local budgets.

 

[RustyShackleford]

EXACTLY!

I don't agree, spend more money on good policing practices.

Yep, it is just that simple

 

[Nike Jordan]

We need a Parler/Stormfront subform on NT. All this liberal logic, science and decency is pissing me off.

It's called the Nike thread.

 

[junglejim]

2. yes i meant "progressive taxation" not progressive income tax. i quickly edited that mistake in my original post.

3. I did. this literally happened in 1994 crime bill, it had funding for local policing in it. so given that it's actually happened before i think it more plausible than something that hasn't happened and is very unpopular polling wise.


and it's obviously not the only viable option.
and i sincerely doubt that defund the police slogan came about from combing through state and local budgets.

2. Again, progressive taxation still does not happen on a local level. It largely property taxes and sales tax, so an increase at a local level is going to be an increase on everyone unless you have the cashier at a store ask for your W-2 wages to check and see if you make above a certain income level. That's a totally feasible idea.

3. OH 30 YEARS AGO IT HAPPENED!!!!!!! What was I thinking. Here I was thinking politics change over time, but we should just do what we did 30 years ago. I guess why we are at it, why don't we just raise the highest marginal tax rate back to the 70% it was in 1980 to help pay for it?

Using a bill that people have been railing against for the last 30 years seems like a pretty stupid argument, no?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Because that is not how statistics work

aepps20 said a population increase in size and your pushback was a shift in the ratio. He is looking at the numerator, you the denominator

Crude example, to show my point.

If a county has 100 voters usually. 60 being white, and 40 being black, then the black share of the electorate is 40%. If an election comes along and there are 130 white voters, and 70 black voters, then the black share of the electorate is 35%. Black turnout surged, but a surge in white turnout made them a smaller share of the electoral.

So more black voters going to the polls in higher numbers, and them being a lower share of the electorate are not mutually exclusive

Tons of things lead to Biden's win. Yes him flipping suburbs, but if turnout among Latinos and black people didn't increase as it did, he probably loses even with those flips.

And to that further, like Cohn pointed out, there could be some major measurement happening because of migration. Migration patterns of racial groups are not something you can track in a short time frame.

Just like the suburbs are not turning blue just because Republicans are flipping to Dem, but migration into the suburbs is changing the demographic make-up of the suburbs making it more friendly to Democrats. Like black voters could have moved out of the urban areas into the burbs at a higher clip. Lower turnout in one area, and helping turn another area blue.

But these are just theories, at this point in time, we don't know. Census data doesn't track these figures very quickly and most state demographers don't look into such things.

yeah i understand the total of black voters increased.
but if that gets swamped by non college white turnout it seems strange to argue that extraordinary black turn out is what gave Biden the victory and that swing voters don't exist.

if anything doesn't it follow that even if you have extraordinary black turn out you need swing voters to grab the W?

 

[RustyShackleford]

2. yes i meant "progressive taxation" not progressive income tax. i quickly edited that mistake in my original post.

3. I did. this literally happened in 1994 crime bill, it had funding for local policing in it. so given that it's actually happened before i think it more plausible than something that hasn't happened and is very unpopular polling wise.


and it's obviously not the only viable option.
and i sincerely doubt that defund the police slogan came about from combing through state and local budgets.

Did the 1994 Crime Bill improve policing?

 

[junglejim]

Did the 1994 Crime Bill improve policing?

The better question is would the 1994 Crime Bill pass again today? Because that is what we are talking about here.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

2. Again, progressive taxation still does not happen on a local level. It largely property taxes and sales tax, so an increase at a local level is going to be an increase on everyone unless you have the cashier at a store as for your W-2 wages to check and see if you make above a certain income level, because that's a totally feasible idea.

3. OH 30 YEARS AGO IT HAPPENED!!!!!!! What was I thinking. Here I was thinking politics change over time, but we should just do what we did 30 years ago. I guess why we are at it, why don't we just raise the highest marginal tax rate back to the 70% like it was in 1980 to help pay for it.

Using a bill that people have been railing against for the last 30 years seems like a pretty stupid argument, no?

im talking about one part of the bill, no all of the bill.

something happening 30 years ago, seems to me more realistic than something like big unpopular cuts to policing funding across the entire country.

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Did the 1994 Crime Bill improve policing?

do you honestly think I'm endorsing the entire 1994 crime bill?

 

[junglejim]

im talking about one part of the bill, no all of the bill.

something happening 30 years ago, seems to me more realistic than something like big unpopular cuts to policing funding across the entire country.

Well good think the people who actual control the budgets on a local level aren't running across the country.

But hey, how is the coronavirus stimulus going? Care to elaborate on what the hold up is on that? Ill give you a hint: Its funding for certain states.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The better question is would the 1994 Crime Bill pass again today? Because that is what we are talking about here.

republicans have grown more receptive to criminal justice reform.


youd think there could be some type of deal that dems give on increases police budgets, and republicans give on sentencing reform, private prisons, demilitarizing police ect.