It is almost like America's race problem is baked into the fabric of this country and it would take something truly radical to repair.
IDK. I was born into a far different America than you...It is almost like America's race problem is baked into the fabric of this country and it would take something truly radical to repair.
I wonder if there are any states that a straight democratic president and vice president could carry that a ticket with a homosexual man could not? Maybe Florida. I am not familiar with all of the swing states demographics but I do not think Pete being on the ticket would sway any states outside the south.It’s funny. When people bring up Pete’s inability to just snap his fingers and fix racism in his town, it seems they conveniently forget several things. DeBlasio hasn’t fixed it, but he is trying hard. Booker couldn’t fix it during his time as mayor of Newark.
The whole expectation that a mayor, or anyone can fix racial issues in policing in a short amount of time is a nice and handy way to discount a candidate that is one of the few with firsthand experience with the actual day to day problems faced by many Americans. Unlike many who come from their senate positions, or business world experience.
Now, your point regarding whether America is ready for a gay VP is definitely valid. I think Americans are far more homophobic and misogynistic that Hollywood and the media portray. However, I didn’t think that America would elect a black president. Nor did I think they would elect a racist, xenophobic, dotard.
I hope that there wouldn’t be any at all where it made a difference. However I can see in swing states, primarily blue collar, older American union members where it could be a factor. If any of those swing states lost the Democrats the election and Pete was on the ticket, the narrative would definitely be that Pete likely cost them the needed votes. Whether that was the actual reason or not, that would be the story.I wonder if there are any states that a straight democratic president and vice president could carry that a ticket with a homosexual man could not? Maybe Florida. I am not familiar with all of the swing states demographics but I do not think Pete being on the ticket would sway any states outside the south.
Considering that Trump only won by about 70,000+ votes in only a few close states in the mid west, its reasonable to think that a gay on the ticket could possibly sway enough votes. But I would be shocked if any white male is on the ticket with Biden (assuming that he wins the nomination) so its a moot point.I wonder if there are any states that a straight democratic president and vice president could carry that a ticket with a homosexual man could not? Maybe Florida. I am not familiar with all of the swing states demographics but I do not think Pete being on the ticket would sway any states outside the south.
I think it would probably disproportionately affect people that use the phrase “a gay on the ticket.”Considering that Trump only won by about 70,000+ votes in only a few close states in the mid west, its reasonable to think that a gay on the ticket could possibly sway enough votes. But I would be shocked if any white male is on the ticket with Biden (assuming that he wins the nomination) so its a moot point.
Do you have any problems with the fact that a flat tax is significantly more regressive than even the current tax system?Our tax system should be overhauled. I would like to see a flat rate tax system or even a federal sales tax (probably won't happen). I do believe we need to place a $2.00 or $3.00 per gallon tax on gasoline plus a tax on vehicles for size of engine, i.e. if you buy a new vehicle with over a 3.5 engine, you would pay $10,000.00 in federal tax. From 1.8 to 3.5, you pay a $5,000.00 federal tax, and under 1.8, no tax. Gasoline tax would be used to pay of debt, and vehicle tax used to clean up the environment. Just a pipe dream.
Thanks Chanson. I am not condemning homosexuality, but rather wondering if a gay running mate would be detrimental to victory in a close election. As President Trump might say " I am the least prejudiced man I know"I hope that there wouldn’t be any at all where it made a difference. However I can see in swing states, primarily blue collar, older American union members where it could be a factor. If any of those swing states lost the Democrats the election and Pete was on the ticket, the narrative would definitely be that Pete likely cost them the needed votes. Whether that was the actual reason or not, that would be the story.
what if raising taxes is the best thing for the country?
I wasn’t intimating you were. I fully acknowledge that homosexuality is a large differentiator amongst many voting groups. I also take heart in the fact that Pete managed to win re-election with 80% of the vote after coming out during the election in a Midwest state whose governor was Mike Pence. I’m realistic enough to recognize that it may make a difference to many people. I also don’t think it is worth kneecapping who I believe to be the best person for the job because everyone has already resigned themselves to feeling that Biden is the only sensible choice.Thanks Chanson. I am not condemning homosexuality, but rather wondering if a gay running mate would be detrimental to victory in a close election. As President Trump might say " I am the least prejudiced man I know"
That's a safe cop outNot until they cut ALL waste and fraud. Stop acting like our tax dollars are their's to spend any way they want. If they want to fly home every weekend they can do it on their dime. Have the same type of heath care coverage the average American has. Cut all unnecessary jobs/depts in the government. Do everything possible before you even consider raising taxes then we can talk.
That's a safe cop out
IMHO, this is a no-win argument.So you are OK with the government wasting tax dollars and continuing to raise taxes? They have already proven that throwing more money at a problem without actually trying to solve the problem doesn't work.
Actually, he was pointing out that you oppose any tax increase, as it is impossible to eliminate all waste and fraud.So you are OK with the government wasting tax dollars and continuing to raise taxes? They have already proven that throwing more money at a problem without actually trying to solve the problem doesn't work.
I never said or implied that.So you are OK with the government wasting tax dollars and continuing to raise taxes? They have already proven that throwing more money at a problem without actually trying to solve the problem doesn't work.
For every Len Burman that thinks a flat rate tax is regressive you have a Steve Forbes That thinks it would be effective. Do you think it would be regressive because it would produce less revenue for our government to waste, produce a hardship on some individuals because it would change write offs, tax the rich that don't pay taxes, or be a career changer for some individuals?
Um, you seem to be unaware the "regressive tax" has an accepted definition - from Dictionary.com:For every Len Burman that thinks a flat rate tax is regressive you have a Steve Forbes That thinks it would be effective. Do you think it would be regressive because it would produce less revenue for our government to waste, produce a hardship on some individuals because it would change write offs, tax the rich that don't pay taxes, or be a career changer for some individuals?
A tax that takes a higher percentage of low incomes than high ones. Sales taxes, especially on food, clothing, medicine, and other basic necessities are widely cited as examples of regressive taxes. (Compare progressive tax.)
Do you think limiting revenue would limit waste? People need to wake up and realize revenue now has very little effect on spending. The last 35 years has proven that.For every Len Burman that thinks a flat rate tax is regressive you have a Steve Forbes That thinks it would be effective. Do you think it would be regressive because it would produce less revenue for our government to waste, produce a hardship on some individuals because it would change write offs, tax the rich that don't pay taxes, or be a career changer for some individuals?