Joe Biden keeps stepping in it – and voters couldn’t care less

[Machismo]

Because for the most part it is the politicians. Your everyday person cares little about all that crap. I know Catholics who vote Republican because of some values they find more important than what is found in the Democrat Party. They dont care about gay marriage, they dont care about abortion. It is the Media and the grandstanding Republican politicians who make a huge fucking deal about this stuff most people dont. Its the same for a lot of other issues. You want to call them hypocrits thinking they agree 100% with the party when they may only care about one or two items. This goes back to shades of gray. When push comes to shove when people are faced locally with a deciding to raise their local or property taxes to pay for X. We know how most will vote. This is why teachers constantly go on strike.




They are bad in the sense that they benefit some groups over others. They are bad because they create loopholes that can be exploited by some.




Are you arguing that everyone who owns a home does so only for the tax deduction? Which they could afford if they just lower their tax liability.





Who the fuck cares what expense they are incurring, it was their choice to own a home? We dont offer deductions for owning a car yet owning a car has additional expense.



I am not shitting on homeowners(I have two homes), they should not be any special than people who rent. Just as someone who owns a car shouldnt be any more special than someone who doesnt. I am helping renters, I am giving them more money in their pocket via reduced income taxes.

You are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, and have done it multiple times. I'm talking mostly about the voters. Your desire to keep deflecting is not really my problem.

This is about blatant hypocrisy among the voters. Now, you may want to try and say they don't care, or you may try and once again deflect, but people really fucking hate being called out as hypocrites. I know, because i point them out all the time. What's worse, is when you use their own words and rhetoric against them to prove it. there's no wiggling out of it, because they said it. They are effectively arguing against themselves, and losing. this is EXACTLY what the Democrats should do, and don't let up. Bury them in their hypocrisy, take the fight directly to every single voter. When a person says one thing, then does the other, call them out on it. Every. Fucking. Time. Let the world know that they are a hypocrite, and embarrass the shit out of them. That will make other people think twice in the future.

No amount of you trying to deflect for them, is going to change that they are hypocrites. There's no gray area, when people say one thing, then do the other. There's no "What he meant was..." because you have a person literally contradicting himself. And yes, that goes for all the evangelicals, as well as all the fake fiscal conservatives. Every time a conservative staunchly defended the bigot baker for refusing to serve gay people, but wants the government to intervene against Facebook and Twitter for banning racists, bury them in their hypocrisy. Every time an evangelical tries to spout morality as an issue, point to their utter disregard for Trump's character flaws and actions, and bury them in their hypocrisy. Every time a fiscal conservative tries to ignore Trump's spending, whilst simultaneously complaining about Obama's spending, (or their state's spending), bury them in their hypocrisy. When you get people to argue against themselves, there's no way for them to win.

They will hate people for it. Good.

[petej0]

Open Borders isn't on ANY policy platform, ANYWHERE.

Keep reading...

[Machismo]

Keep reading...

Except it's really not.

[petej0]

You are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying, and have done it multiple times. I'm talking mostly about the voters. Your desire to keep deflecting is not really my problem.

This is about blatant hypocrisy among the voters. Now, you may want to try and say they don't care, or you may try and once again deflect, but people really fucking hate being called out as hypocrites. I know, because i point them out all the time. What's worse, is when you use their own words and rhetoric against them to prove it. there's no wiggling out of it, because they said it. They are effectively arguing against themselves, and losing. this is EXACTLY what the Democrats should do, and don't let up. Bury them in their hypocrisy, take the fight directly to every single voter. When a person says one thing, then does the other, call them out on it. Every. Fucking. Time. Let the world know that they are a hypocrite, and embarrass the shit out of them. That will make other people think twice in the future.

No amount of you trying to deflect for them, is going to change that they are hypocrites. There's no gray area, when people say one thing, then do the other. There's no "What he meant was..." because you have a person literally contradicting himself. And yes, that goes for all the evangelicals, as well as all the fake fiscal conservatives. Every time a conservative staunchly defended the bigot baker for refusing to serve gay people, but wants the government to intervene against Facebook and Twitter for banning racists, bury them in their hypocrisy. Every time an evangelical tries to spout morality as an issue, point to their utter disregard for Trump's character flaws and actions, and bury them in their hypocrisy. Every time a fiscal conservative tries to ignore Trump's spending, whilst simultaneously complaining about Obama's spending, (or their state's spending), bury them in their hypocrisy. When you get people to argue against themselves, there's no way for them to win.

They will hate people for it. Good.

And I am saying there is so much gray area that you cant simply define it like that. How can you define a two time Obama voter and Trump voter as a hypocrite? And then claim they lost the moral high ground for life.

[Machismo]

And I am saying there is so much gray area that you cant simply define it like that. How can you define a two time Obama voter and Trump voter as a hypocrite? And then claim they lost the moral high ground for life.

It's not a gray area when people are literally contradicting themselves. Of course you can define it like that, it's what the word literally means.

Hell, as you pointed out, people voted for Trump, because they hated Hillary. That's making it a black-and-white issue. Otherwise, they could have simply stayed home, or voted third party. Burying them in their blatant hypocrisy is simply playing that game, and winning it... over and over again.

Do you know how a person stops being a hypocrite? Admitting they were wrong, and fixing themselves. Let me know when the people who still support Trump do that.

[Themius]

Julian Castro wants to repeal the law making illegal entry a federal crime. As for polls, I think we can look to 2016 to see that polls can be wrong. I think Sanders and Warren supporters are split and as soon as one of them drops out, you will see them flock to the other which may be enough.

If their goal is to take down Trump why are so many pushing this socialist platform? Everytime I hear of some new social platform by a Dem candidate I say to myself "Do you want Trump to get reelected, because this is how you get Trump Reelected." The media is so in love with AOC and her brand that and its so far from the Old white guy routine of Biden that the media is shit posting all the time on him. Lets be honest, this wasnt anything new to Biden during the 2008 election, they just didnt report on it. Its not that voters couldnt care less NOW, it was the media couldnt care less THEN. Now that there is a new "it" movement ("Democratic" Socialism), Biden can be tossed away. Why settle for Milk toast Biden when you can get an honest to goodness "Democratic" Socialist, especially in a year when a flower pot can beat the incumbent.

- - - Updated - - -



To play devils advocate, Trump also said he had more people at his inauguration. They guy is a bullshit artist, its tough to know what to believe.

Decriminalizing != open.

This country is weird and filled with people who are masochist who love being whipped by their oligarch masters..

[petej0]

"System isn't 100% perfect, better scrap it!"

Yeah, why not? Why are there so many deductions and credits? Why cant we have a simple progressive tax code?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that it is an incentive that plays a factor in ownership versus rental.

Exactly, its not the only incentive. Affordability being the most important.

"Lower their tax liability". So...make less money?

No lower the amount of tax they owe, thus have more money and afford a home. Why not just argue honestly?

Also, thanks for demonstrating this really isn't about "helping people", it's about feeling bad that someone gets to play with a toy that you don't.

No, its about helping people gain home ownership. You are arguing that being a homeowner is something special that deserves special treatment.

Hint: People being house-poor generally isn't good for economic activity for the same reason people spending all their money on healthcare and education isn't good for economic activity.

Who is making people house poor? All I am arguing is allow nonhomeowners to have the same tax liability as homeowners.

You have two homes, and yet feel you are in a position to complain about the housing crisis? I can guarantee you owning that second home does a lot more harm to people than any amount of mortgage payment deductions.

I am not complaining about the housing crisis, I am arguing why have special tax laws based on a purchase. Just allow everyone that same rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Decriminalizing != open.

This country is weird and filled with people who are masochist who love being whipped by their oligarch masters..

If you dont charge people with illegal entry, what incentive is there to not enter? It is a defacto open border, come across, pay a fine and go along your merry way. What incentive is there to follow any immigration law?

[Themius]

Yeah, why not? Why are there so many deductions and credits? Why cant we have a simple progressive tax code?





Exactly, its not the only incentive. Affordability being the most important.



No lower the amount of tax they owe, thus have more money and afford a home. Why not just argue honestly?




No, its about helping people gain home ownership. You are arguing that being a homeowner is something special that deserves special treatment.




Who is making people house poor? All I am arguing is allow nonhomeowners to have the same tax liability as homeowners.




I am not complaining about the housing crisis, I am arguing why have special tax laws based on a purchase. Just allow everyone that same rate.

- - - Updated - - -



If you dont charge people with illegal entry, what incentive is there to not enter? It is a defacto open border, come across, pay a fine and go along your merry way. What incentive is there to follow any immigration law?

Um...

“I'm talking about repealing Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which simply refers to people who cross the border,” Castro said.

“And between 1929 and the early 2000s, we actually treated it as a civil violation," he added. "So, this is not something radical. This is the way that we used to treat it.”

“If somebody comes here, and they are doing human trafficking or drug trafficking, we have laws that we can charge them with. I'm not suggesting that we let those people off the hook,” he said. “What I'm suggesting is, if somebody comes here, they're undocumented, they're not committing a crime, like human trafficking or drug trafficking, then that should be treated as a civil violation.”

Castro said that problems associated with immigration enforcement had “multiplied” as a result of Section 1325.

“So I would absolutely go back to the way that we used to treat this. And I believe that that would be more effective, smarter and more humane,” he said.

Tell me... from 1929-early 2000s did we have open borders?

These laws got a new life in 2005, when the Bush administration decided to charge those that crossed the border with criminal violations, rather than civil ones. This shift to criminalize immigration is at the core of many of this administration’s most egregious immigration policies — from family separation to indiscriminate ICE raids to targeting asylum seekers. It also underlies some of this administration’s most damaging rhetoric that vilifies immigrants and families
The Trump administration has slashed the number of people who can claim asylum at our ports of entry, and weaponized Section 1325 to try and make it a crime to claim asylum outside a port of entry. These misguided policies, combined with criminally under-resourced ports of entry, have created a backlog at our borders. The result is apparent in the scenes from El Paso recently, where thousands of migrants were held with limited food and water in caged outdoor pens.

[petej0]

Um...



Tell me... from 1929-early 2000s did we have open borders?

I dont know how many illegal immigrants came across the border in that time?

[Themius]

I dont know how many illegal immigrants came across the border in that time?

You don't know whether or not we had open borders from 1929-2005?

[petej0]

You don't know whether or not we had open borders from 1929-2005?

I dont know how many illegal immigrants came across the border in that time?

[Themius]

I dont know how many illegal immigrants came across the border in that time?

There were some significant spikes in the oh... 76 years period.

Now explain to me how Julian Castro saying to treat it as a civil violation as it was for 76 years is calling for open borders? You can't because the stance is utter bullshit and I have just neutered your bullshit claim of "de facto" open borders.

[petej0]

There were some significant spikes in the oh... 76 years period.

Now explain to me how Julian Castro saying to treat it as a civil violation as it was for 76 years is calling for open borders? You can't because the stance is utter bullshit and I have just neutered your bullshit claim of "de facto" open borders.

There is no disincentive, its a defacto open border. Why change it?

[Machismo]

There is no disincentive, its a defacto open border. Why change it?

You saying it does not make it so.

[Themius]

There is no disincentive, its a defacto open border. Why change it?

So you're saying 1929-2005 we had open borders?

So George H W Bush was for open borders?

Reagan was for open borders?

Nixon

Gerald Ford



They were all for open borders?

[petej0]

So you're saying 1929-2005 we had open borders?

So George H W Bush was for open borders?

Reagan was for open borders?

Nixon

Gerald Ford



They were all for open borders?

You saying it does not make it so.

Whats the purpose of changing how its classified? Because with the sanctuary policies now, it will be harder to deport them because its only a civil crime.

[Themius]

Whats the purpose of changing how its classified? Because with the sanctuary policies now, it will be harder to deport them because its only a civil crime.

So question.

Nixon, Reagan, George H W bush Gerald Ford, were all for open borders?

[Machismo]

Whats the purpose of changing how its classified? Because with the sanctuary policies now, it will be harder to deport them because its only a civil crime.

Once again, saying something does not make it so.

[petej0]

So question.

Nixon, Reagan, George H W bush Gerald Ford, were all for open borders?

They just werent tough on border security, not that they were FOR anything.

[Themius]

They just werent tough on border security, not that they were FOR anything.

So now you're saying going back to 1929-2005 policy is not open borders like you did before?