Octopus Overlords

Warren 2020 - putting the septuagenarian in BDSM!

Im kinda burned out on old fart Presidents. "Huh? You sonny there in the back speak up I cant hear you"..."Grass? Get off it!...oh marijuana nm"

I think the whole thing was debunked more or less immediately, but here are some lookups on Wohl's USMC candidate boyfriend:

https://twitter.com/BrandyZadrozny/stat ... 60960?s=20

https://twitter.com/TLCplMax/status/117 ... 69088?s=20

https://twitter.com/JimLaPorta/status/1 ... 19590?s=20

I'm sure the Founding Fathers anticipated all of this shit.

Hoo boy. This doesn't look good.

https://twitter.com/rtraister/status/11 ... 54208?s=20

Quote is from here: Biden’s Most Formidable Opponent Is Not Another Democrat

tl;dr He's too old.

Holman wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:35 am Hoo boy. This doesn't look good.

https://twitter.com/rtraister/status/11 ... 54208?s=20

Quote is from here: Biden’s Most Formidable Opponent Is Not Another Democrat

tl;dr He's too old.

So the point of this quote is that Biden was telling a long rambling story without a clear point?

I mean yeah, I agree that he does that and that he's probably too old, but I was expecting a lot worse out of this quote, especially prefaced with "oh my god".

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:39 am So the point of this quote is that Biden was telling a long rambling story without a clear point?

I mean yeah, I agree that he does that and that he's probably too old, but I was expecting a lot worse out of this quote, especially prefaced with "oh my god".

I think that one goes beyond "rambling story" and gets perilously close to Trumpian word salad. It's worrying.

Still, the article is a decently nuanced treatment of the Age Issue, not a hit piece.

I'll put aside the word salad. He makes a major factual error about King and Kennedy getting assassinated in the 70s. Then there is the part that talks about how 'none of your women will know this'. It is borderline sexist and definitely inappropriate. We are up against the end of our democracy and this is the front runner? Maybe we deserve this shit show.

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:13 am I'll put aside the word salad. He makes a major factual error about King and Kennedy getting assassinated in the 70s. Then there is the part that talks about how 'none of your women will know this'. It is borderline sexist and definitely inappropriate. We are up against the end of our democracy and this is the front runner? Maybe we deserve this shit show.

Oh yeah, it's not great. I *definitely* would rather have Warren debating Trump than Biden, that's for sure.

But on the plus side, at this point Biden is more of a co-frontrunner (with Warren) than *the* frontrunner, at least.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:20 am

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:13 am I'll put aside the word salad. He makes a major factual error about King and Kennedy getting assassinated in the 70s. Then there is the part that talks about how 'none of your women will know this'. It is borderline sexist and definitely inappropriate. We are up against the end of our democracy and this is the front runner? Maybe we deserve this shit show.

Oh yeah, it's not great. I *definitely* would rather have Warren debating Trump than Biden, that's for sure.

But on the plus side, at this point Biden is more of a co-frontrunner (with Warren) than *the* frontrunner, at least.

Fair enough. His candidacy scares the dickens out of me. I am convinced despite the polls that he will not beat Trump. He is not the guy up to the task.

I think all three of the septuagenarians should drop out. They all have liabilities. That said, of the three, I think Biden has the strongest argument for electability, given his blue collar roots and "folksy charm", his appeal to midwestern states and that he isn't trying to push a very sharp left turn.

If Biden was the age he was 10 years ago no problem. But I think he is too old and his mind has dulled. When I see and hear him I think old man..elderly. He didn't seem that way not that many years ago.

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:16 pm I think all three of the septuagenarians should drop out. They all have liabilities. That said, of the three, I think Biden has the strongest argument for electability, given his blue collar roots and "folksy charm", his appeal to midwestern states and that he isn't trying to push a very sharp left turn.

Including Warren (age 70)? That seems extra bonkers, given that she's materially younger, still obviously super sharp, *and* is a co-frontrunner at the moment.

Also if Biden dropped out, Trumpworld would go into overdrive flooding the political landscape with the idea that it's because of the "Biden scandal" that they've uncovered, especially since Biden would be dropping out while a frontrunner, which would be unprecedented (I think).

When do we get a 45 year old again?

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:35 pm

Including Warren (age 70)? That seems extra bonkers, given that she's materially younger, still obviously super sharp, *and* is a co-frontrunner at the moment.

It's less of an issue, but it's on the border of being too old to run for President, IMO (looking at the two presidents in their 70s does not inspire confidence). In addition, you also have to factor in her running for reelection in four years, assuming you want to maintain Democratic Presidency.

Also if Biden dropped out, Trumpworld would go into overdrive flooding the political landscape with the idea that it's because of the "Biden scandal" that they've uncovered, especially since Biden would be dropping out while a frontrunner, which would be unprecedented (I think).

Hart in 1988 comes to mind (maybe LBJ in 1968?). And Trumpworld is always in overdrive regardless of what Democrats do.

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:50 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:35 pm

Including Warren (age 70)? That seems extra bonkers, given that she's materially younger, still obviously super sharp, *and* is a co-frontrunner at the moment.

It's less of an issue, but it's on the border of being too old to run for President, IMO (looking at the two presidents in their 70s does not inspire confidence). In addition, you also have to factor in her running for reelection in four years, assuming you want to maintain Democratic Presidency.

Also if Biden dropped out, Trumpworld would go into overdrive flooding the political landscape with the idea that it's because of the "Biden scandal" that they've uncovered, especially since Biden would be dropping out while a frontrunner, which would be unprecedented (I think).

Hart in 1988 comes to mind (maybe LBJ in 1968?). And Trumpworld is always in overdrive regardless of what Democrats do.

Hart dropped out....because of a scandal. And yeah, Trumpworld will do what Trumpworld will do, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter whether you give them fuel or not. Trumpworld's spinning the Ukraine thing right now too, but it's not working overly well outside of Trumpworld itself because of the facts.

And Warren's young enough that she can seek reelection. She'd be 74. Not young by any means but young enough that it's not overly concerning to me. She should be careful to select a younger running mate (early 60s would still be fine for that IMO), but it doesn't really concern me.

Biden's age is more concerning (there's a significant difference between 70 and 76), although even that wouldn't keep me from voting for him if we weren't already seeing some warning signs of cognitive decline (setting aside other issues for the moment).

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:30 am

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:20 am

malchior wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:13 am I'll put aside the word salad. He makes a major factual error about King and Kennedy getting assassinated in the 70s. Then there is the part that talks about how 'none of your women will know this'. It is borderline sexist and definitely inappropriate. We are up against the end of our democracy and this is the front runner? Maybe we deserve this shit show.

Oh yeah, it's not great. I *definitely* would rather have Warren debating Trump than Biden, that's for sure.

But on the plus side, at this point Biden is more of a co-frontrunner (with Warren) than *the* frontrunner, at least.

Fair enough. His candidacy scares the dickens out of me. I am convinced despite the polls that he will not beat Trump. He is not the guy up to the task.

I firmly believe that Biden is the riskiest nominee that the Democrats could put up in 2020. Of all the candidates, Klobuchar might be the safest bet. Of the three real candidates Warren is by far the safest bet. In my estimation, at least.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:00 pm She'd be 75.

FTFY.

Fireball wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:01 pm Of all the candidates, Klobuchar might be the safest bet.

This.

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:04 pm

Fireball wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:01 pm Of all the candidates, Klobuchar might be the safest bet.

This.

I mean, that would require Democratic primary voters to be willing to vote for her, so...

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:02 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:00 pm She'd be 75.

FTFY.

Her birthday is June 22, 1949, so she will turn 75 on June 22, 2024. So she will turn 75 during the middle of 2024 election season. If you want to get technical.

Well, usually election day or inauguration day are what people look at, but I'll take "technically correct" cause it's the best kind of correct.

Daehawk wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:42 pm When do we get a 45 year old again?

Not soon enough.

• Sanders - 78
  Biden - 76
  Trump - 73
  Warren - 70

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics ... index.html

NY Times talks about Biden's response to the Ukraine story.

Mr. Biden himself was equivocating: He wanted to defend and protect his son, but he also believed the president was baiting him into a dirty fight. And as a lifelong adherent to congressional tradition, Mr. Biden was wary of acting hastily as an impeachment inquiry was getting underway.

The strain grew so acute that some of Mr. Biden’s advisers lashed out at their own party, taking the unusual step of urging campaign surrogates to criticize the Democratic National Committee — a neutral body in the primary — for not doing more to defend Mr. Biden, while the Republican National Committee was running TV ads attacking him. Frustrated, D.N.C. officials informed the Biden camp that it would continue denouncing Mr. Trump but would not run ads for Mr. Biden or any other candidate.

Will someone just tell Beto he's no longer relevant to the presidential race and to just shut up. With his attempt to matter, he's given the Republicans two big talking points in the last few weeks. First he says he's going to take away guns (assault weapons) from people, now he's going to take away the tax exemption of churches that don't toe his line on LGBT issues. As if gun owners and conservative churches don't need more incentive to vote Republican. He's a walking ad for the Republicans. Not only is this stupid politics, it's stupid policy. Beto, just shut up!

Note: The idea of taking away church tax exemptions is especially stupid. Churches register as non-profit organizations and are treated the same as the rest of non-profits. If you can take away churches' non-profit status because you don't like what they believe/teach, then what's to prevent a conservative administration from taking away non-profit status for organizations that believe/teach what they don't like? And this isn't even getting into First Amendment issues.

I'll also add that this reveals a terrible ignorance of how most (at least Protestant churches) work for the most part. I've been a member of a number of churches and we never made a "profit" to be taxed. We always spent everything we took in - maybe at year end we had a little bit left over, or if short, pulled out of the bank account, but most churches don't have a "profit" to be taxed. They spend it all on salaries, buildings, and ministries.

Grifman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 11:21 am As if gun owners and conservative churches don't need more incentive to vote Republican.

I think most of these folks are going to vote Republican no matter what Beto says. I'm tired of Democrats walking on eggshells in fear of offending voters who will never vote for them.


Still, I agree that Beto's ideas are remarkably stupid.

Should super tax televangelists.

What would be the effect of eliminating religious tax exemptions and instead treating churches like other charities and non-profit organizations?

My understanding is that the special bonus given to churches is simply that they get the exemptions automatically without having to apply for special status or demonstrate anything about their financial dealings. This is a luxury compared to a homeless shelter or food bank or other charity that must prove that they're using their funds for charitable work before they can claim exemptions.

This, of course, is why there are so many grifters out there posing as ministers.

Treating churches like every other charity wouldn't affect typical neighborhood congregations at all: the finances of a corner church probably don't differ much from a local YMCA or women's shelter. On the other hand, megachurches with massive campuses and private jets might deserve a new kind of attention, and televangelists would find themselves audited where the sun don't shine.

The assertion that churches are non profits in this day and age is questionable in many cases.

Holman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:24 pm What would be the effect of eliminating religious tax exemptions and instead treating churches like other charities and non-profit organizations?

That's not what Beto is proposing. He's proposing to take away tax exempt status for churches. He's not proposing that they be treated like other non-profits. I'm not certain why you think he's proposing a mere administrative change. And you should know that many churches do go ahead and apply for non-profit status so that donors will know and be assured that the church is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit and donations are tax deductible.

My understanding is that the special bonus given to churches is simply that they get the exemptions automatically without having to apply for special status or demonstrate anything about their financial dealings. This is a luxury compared to a homeless shelter or food bank or other charity that must prove that they're using their funds for charitable work before they can claim exemptions.

See my comment above about churches seeking non-profit status. And Beto would take that away if they even applied for that. Surely he's not just taking away an administrative benefit they have - he wants to make sure donations are not tax deductible and that churches are taxed in some way. It's quite clear that's what he's aiming at. Not just now requiring them to file more paperwork.

This, of course, is why there are so many grifters out there posing as ministers.

Agreed, but freedom comes with a price.

Treating churches like every other charity wouldn't affect typical neighborhood congregations at all: the finances of a corner church probably don't differ much from a local YMCA or women's shelter.

But again that's not what he's saying.

On the other hand, megachurches with massive campuses and private jets might deserve a new kind of attention, and televangelists would find themselves audited where the sun don't shine.

I would welcome that. I do think the US needs more regulation of non-profits in general - the pendulum has swung too far IMO. But churches shouldn't lose benefits because the government doesn't like what they teach/believe. Then the pulpit just becomes a mouthpiece for the government.

hepcat wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:33 pm The assertion that churches are non profits in this day and age is questionable in many cases.

Not really, the vast majority of churches are rather small, mostly neighborhood churches, serving their members and communities as best they can.

Exodor wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:03 pm

Grifman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 11:21 am As if gun owners and conservative churches don't need more incentive to vote Republican.

I think most of these folks are going to vote Republican no matter what Beto says.

I'm not voting for Trump no matter what, but if this were Democratic policy, they'd lose my vote - I'd just stay home.

I'm tired of Democrats walking on eggshells in fear of offending voters who will never vote for them.

It's not about offending them, it's about giving people an incentive to turn and vote against you. Stuff like this will stir up people to vote.

Grifman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 pm

Holman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:24 pm What would be the effect of eliminating religious tax exemptions and instead treating churches like other charities and non-profit organizations?

That's not what Beto is proposing. He's proposing to take away tax exempt status for churches. He's not proposing that they be treated like other non-profits. I'm not certain why you think he's proposing a mere administrative change. And you should know that many churches do go ahead and apply for non-profit status so that donors will know and be assured that the church is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit and donations are tax deductible.

I thought Trump's alt-tax cut took away charitable deductions? That's what my account told me last year (and it was one reason our taxes were quite a bit higher) because up until then, we'd been generous. These days? Not so much.

You can't assume that every church is full of Trump-loving, gun-toting rightwigers. There are a lot of churches that are appalled at how they are hijacking what Christianity is supposed to teach. Dr William Barber and John Pavolovitz are good examples of that.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/04/04/tr ... npavlovitz

Grifman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 pm That's not what Beto is proposing.

I know. I wasn't supporting Beto's litmus test at all.

Elizabeth Warren is courting the always elusive Baller vote.

Jeff V wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:09 am

Grifman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 pm

Holman wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:24 pm What would be the effect of eliminating religious tax exemptions and instead treating churches like other charities and non-profit organizations?

That's not what Beto is proposing. He's proposing to take away tax exempt status for churches. He's not proposing that they be treated like other non-profits. I'm not certain why you think he's proposing a mere administrative change. And you should know that many churches do go ahead and apply for non-profit status so that donors will know and be assured that the church is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit and donations are tax deductible.

I thought Trump's alt-tax cut took away charitable deductions? That's what my account told me last year (and it was one reason our taxes were quite a bit higher) because up until then, we'd been generous. These days? Not so much.

They weren't taken away but the standard deduction went up, so unless you exceed that, your giving would not be deductible.

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:16 pm I think all three of the septuagenarians should drop out. They all have liabilities. That said, of the three, I think Biden has the strongest argument for electability, given his blue collar roots and "folksy charm", his appeal to midwestern states and that he isn't trying to push a very sharp left turn.

You're bonkers. Warren moves and talks and organizes and prepares like she's 40. Biden actually looks like the one of the 3 who has aged the most poorly - he doesn't seem capable of putting the work in at all.

You're bonkers. Biden looks younger than any of the three.

Oh, hey, it looks like Michael Bloomburg is considering a presidential run to prevent the election of... Elizabeth Warren.

Billionaires will burn the country to the ground before they give *anything* back.