There was an article on CNN about how Santorum hasn't talked to Romney since dropping out. I started to read it, then gleefully realized I didn't have to, since that piece of shit is no longer relevant on the national stage.
because of all the countries in the world the US is one of the very few which collects taxes from non-resident citizens
edit: say, for example, as a US citizen you move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and intend to spend the rest of your life in Canada and never move back to the US. You would remain liable to pay taxes on all of your income to the US. Despite not having lived there for years. Even though you may never again set foot on US soil. For most people the IRS won't bother pursuing you due to the costs of international legal proceedings. However, if you are rich enough to warrant it, they will. For someone who is essentially American in name only this is a burden, so they renounce their citizenship.
In some cases the former US citizens in question may never have lived in the United States, having inherited citizenship from their parents or been born on an overseas military base or whatever.
I don't get why people think Rice isn't a neo-Con Bushie and is so incredibly competent. She was the National Security Advisor and on 9/11 she was supposed to give a speech about how terrorists were not a threat unless acting as a proxy to a nation-state and that missile defense was the highest and biggest security priority for the US. She personally authorized waterboarding. She was pro-Iraq War. She's a Nixonite, a Rumsfeld neo-con. Just because she's black, educated and articulate doesn't mean she's Colin Powell with tits
because of all the countries in the world the US is one of the very few which collects taxes from non-resident citizens
edit: say, for example, as a US citizen you move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and intend to spend the rest of your life in Canada and never move back to the US. You would remain liable to pay taxes on all of your income to the US. Despite not having lived there for years. Even though you may never again set foot on US soil. For most people the IRS won't bother pursuing you due to the costs of international legal proceedings. However, if you are rich enough to warrant it, they will. For someone who is essentially American in name only this is a burden, so they renounce their citizenship.
In some cases the former US citizens in question may never have lived in the United States, having inherited citizenship from their parents or been born on an overseas military base or whatever.
It is a bit silly, although the US does allow you to deduct the taxes paid locally from your tax bill in the US. So if you live in Germany and pay 45% tax then no tax for you. Just report your earnings and how much tax you've already paid and it's job done. The people renouncing their citizenship are sometimes doing so due to the hassle of filing but it's mainly because they 'live' in some tax haven where tax is 2%. The US government would then technically make them pay the rest of the tax they would owe if they lived in the US. Its a law that actually makes sense for millionaires and is one of the few 'teeth' that the US has in terms of taxing them. However it's rarely enforced and easily avoided, and is indeed a bit odd. I would just remove it really simply because (like many laws) it's a hassle for people who it is intended to have no affect on (people actually living in foreign countries and really paying tax there) and easily avoided by those who it is intended to affect (people pretending to live in Monaco, while still spending 95% of their time split between random places around the world including the US)
If you moved to Canada you'd never pay 1 cent in tax, since rates in Canada are higher.
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic. Romney will be talking about only one thing all election, unless the democrats can stop him...
"Everything is worse under Obama, all his economic policies have failed. That's why we still have a deficit. If I had been president there would ve only 2% unemployment and no deficit and lower taxes"
This is literally all he is going to say. It's his only chance. The democrats, if they are smart, will go after his running mate (who'll be from the far right) and push them on social issues forcing Romney to start taking stands like...
"Prayer in school is vital, and I will make it mandatory for all schools to offer it"
"Healthcare is only the concern of the individual getting it"
"Government research is bad"
"I will take steps to ban as many abortions as I can"
There was an article on CNN about how Santorum hasn't talked to Romney since dropping out. I started to read it, then gleefully realized I didn't have to, since that piece of shit is no longer relevant on the national stage.
Hopefully this bodes well for Santorum not being the VP nom, as well as having worse and worse chances for the next election.
He burned (and continues to burn) so many political bridges with this campaign. He's such an unbelievable moron, I can't fathom how he ever made it as far as he did.
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The Tea Party doesn't like any moderates though. Romney is too moderate for them.
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
The Tea Party doesn't want moderates. Any moderate will not be liked. You might as well be saying Romney will pick a Democrat the Tea Party likes.
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
Which moderate does the Tea Party like?.... Oh my god is Christie going to get the VP and then Romney will graciously bow out and give him the actual P and take the VP and we'll all be okay again oh I've got the vapors
Actually, what's up with the Tea Party? They've been basically out of the direct race coverage as far as I can tell. Did they like Santorum? Or were they all for... Perry? I honestly forget what their effect was predicted to be.
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
A few thoughts on this not unlikely prediction.
1.) The "Next in Line" theory is kinda, well, overblown in my opinion. It's true just enough to seem true, but I don't think it holds up to historical scrutiny.
2.) I can see where the GOP wouldn't put a social conservative on the ticket, they might (rightly) feel the need to reach out to the saner parts of the voting public. They DO want the Tea Party to die in a fire so they might think that they can prune the hedges a little bit by putting two moderates on the ticket. However that is going to backfire in two ways if the party does decide to go through with it.
Firstly, there'll be an immediate backlash in November. People are already not excited for Romney, if it's double Romney then that suppresses voter turnout in November even more or it gives a spoiler candidate (maybe a last chance third party run for Paul) the fire he needs to tank the conservative vote.
Secondly, when they inevitably lose to Obama the party will do what it did after 2008 when they ran McCain, decide that the ticket wasn't conservative enough. This will embolden the Tea Party and its No True Conservative bullshit, increasing the likelihood of a Santorum or Ryan or, yes, Perry, frontrunner in 2016 (voters have short memories IRL, so if Perry can do enough image buffering over the next four years, don't count him out).
Not to mention the fact that the Tea Party, by its very nature, hates moderate Republicans almost more than they hate Democrats so I don't see a "moderate that the Tea Party likes" existing.
Certainly not someone who is considered moderate by anyone other than the Tea Party.
But, it isn't an impossible route for the GOP to take, it just has a lot of risk with it. Who did you have in mind, @Spool32?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Romney will probably run into trouble as most of the folks he would pick as running mate won't want to be associated with him or this election cycle. Doing so will only hrt their chances for the 2016 run (where we will likely see Jeb Bush, Rubio, Huntsman, and Christie as primary contenders).
The old party elite seem to be bowing out and using this election cycle to let the Tea Party candidates blow out their steam and lose horribly, so that they can pick up the pieces in 2016 with a more coherent, and more tightly controlled, group of candidates.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
That strategy would have worked pretty much every other election cycle in recent memory. The problem with doing that this year is that coming out against Ledbetter (regardless or how you couch your argument) just feeds into the War on Women narrative. He can't afford to give any more fuel to that issue, and he can't afford to suggest that any form of regulation is a good thing. He's literally in a lose/lose situation. There is no possible way for him to answer the question without stepping on a landmine. It's delicious.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
Which moderate does the Tea Party like?.... Oh my god is Christie going to get the VP and then Romney will graciously bow out and give him the actual P and take the VP and we'll all be okay again oh I've got the vapors
Actually, what's up with the Tea Party? They've been basically out of the direct race coverage as far as I can tell. Did they like Santorum? Or were they all for... Perry? I honestly forget what their effect was predicted to be.
They were the 60% of Republican primary voters who voted against Romney. They split their support between all the various Not Romneys, thus making sure that none of them could take the cake. This is because they're a pack of rabid dogs who tear each other apart at the slightest whiff of socialism, or as we call it, civilization.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a self-righteous madman.
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
Which moderate does the Tea Party like?.... Oh my god is Christie going to get the VP and then Romney will graciously bow out and give him the actual P and take the VP and we'll all be okay again oh I've got the vapors
Actually, what's up with the Tea Party? They've been basically out of the direct race coverage as far as I can tell. Did they like Santorum? Or were they all for... Perry? I honestly forget what their effect was predicted to be.
They were the 60% of Republican primary voters who voted against Romney. They split their support between all the various Not Romneys, thus making sure that none of them could take the cake. This is because they're a pack of rabid dogs who tear each other apart at the slightest whiff of socialism, or as we call it, civilization.
That's why Reagan was important to them. He made the party unified. Without that the factions tear each other to pieces. Fear and anger against a third party (like Democrats or terrorists or hostile nations) is only temporary. The cold war was another linchpin to keep the party in a tight coalition, too.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a party of self-righteous madmen.
Fixed that for you.
It's scary how every follower seems to be in the same nutcase lockstep. You read comments on articles and you have people writing things like, "What a fool! He buys the liberal media narrative of a Republican war on women!" and you think, "Do these people think that required trans-vaginal ultrasounds are a made up thing like Hobbits?"
There's such a huge disconnect from what they do and how that causes them to be perceived..."Yeah, I go around slapping people and calling them assholes!...So, tell me again, why don't you want to spend time with me?"
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a self-righteous madman.
You're right that not all believe their sexist or racist, but they will do it unconsciously. I definitely believe they have large numbers of genuine racists and sexists. The smart ones hide it in public.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a self-righteous madman.
You're right that not all believe their sexist or racist, but they will do it unconsciously. I definitely believe they have large numbers of genuine racists and sexists. The smart ones hide it in public.
I mean, you're right, but it's like my dear, dear grandmother.
If you say "hey, are you racist?" She'll deny it up an down. But then it's thanksgiving and she's telling about how she went in to vote and "tried her hardest" to vote for Obama but just couldn't do it.
Or my other grandma, who I'm fairly sure was against suffrage, but wouldn't cop to it.
Saying "I think women should be equal" is a thing they'll agree to (mostly and certainly enough that it won't hurt Romoney to say), but it's their actions which define them rather than their talking points.
That's why Reagan was important to them. He made the party unified. Without that the factions tear each other to pieces. Fear and anger against a third party (like Democrats or terrorists or hostile nations) is only temporary. The cold war was another linchpin to keep the party in a tight coalition, too.
I'd argue that until a black man won the presidency, the Republicans were good at falling in line with each other anyway. It was how they made so many strides during Clinton's term and more during Bush's. You'd have a few that would grouse but when it came time to vote they'd all follow the leader because "that's just the way things are done." The Democrats, otoh, did a lot more voting by conscience/appeasing donors and the Republicans jammed through legislation because of the divide.
A better response, and I imagine the kind that will be cobbled together in a few months is "OF course women should get equal pay, I'm just not sure of some of the clauses in Ledbetter."
Or, better yet "Yes, Ledbetter is a great law and I will look for ways to do even more for women."
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a self-righteous madman.
You're right that not all believe their sexist or racist, but they will do it unconsciously. I definitely believe they have large numbers of genuine racists and sexists. The smart ones hide it in public.
I mean, you're right, but it's like my dear, dear grandmother.
If you say "hey, are you racist?" She'll deny it up an down. But then it's thanksgiving and she's telling about how she went in to vote and "tried her hardest" to vote for Obama but just couldn't do it.
Or my other grandma, who I'm fairly sure was against suffrage, but wouldn't cop to it.
Saying "I think women should be equal" is a thing they'll agree to (mostly and certainly enough that it won't hurt Romoney to say), but it's their actions which define them rather than their talking points.
Exactly.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
People like that irritate me, because they probably actually believe they aren't racist or misogynist. Self-delusion annoys me.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Of course they don't believe they're racist - society has accepted that "RACISM" is a bad thing. That's why judging people based solely on their race can't really be racist, because racism is a bad thing, and I don't do bad things.
Anyone noticing the GOP civility police out in force lately? On TV, on Facebook comments, etc.?
Here's a nice little metaphor for what I've been seeing - and maybe it's always been there:
*two kids are playing in the schoolyard*
*GOP runs up and punches NonGOP*
GOP: Hah, take that punk!
*NonGOP hits GOP back*
GOP: Why did you hit me?! I am telling!
GOP: Teacher! Teacher! NonGOP hit me!
Teacher (aka Media/Dumbfuck Electorate/Soccer Moms/Independents/Libertarians): Now, NonGOP, you know it isn't nice to hit people. I don't know why you can't be a nice little boy, like GOP.
Posts
Where are they gonna live? International waters?
Obviously they're going to build a Galtean utopia under the sea! Plasmids and Adam for everyone!
No
Just, you know, where they are living
Which isn't the US
because of all the countries in the world the US is one of the very few which collects taxes from non-resident citizens
edit: say, for example, as a US citizen you move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and intend to spend the rest of your life in Canada and never move back to the US. You would remain liable to pay taxes on all of your income to the US. Despite not having lived there for years. Even though you may never again set foot on US soil. For most people the IRS won't bother pursuing you due to the costs of international legal proceedings. However, if you are rich enough to warrant it, they will. For someone who is essentially American in name only this is a burden, so they renounce their citizenship.
In some cases the former US citizens in question may never have lived in the United States, having inherited citizenship from their parents or been born on an overseas military base or whatever.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It is a bit silly, although the US does allow you to deduct the taxes paid locally from your tax bill in the US. So if you live in Germany and pay 45% tax then no tax for you. Just report your earnings and how much tax you've already paid and it's job done. The people renouncing their citizenship are sometimes doing so due to the hassle of filing but it's mainly because they 'live' in some tax haven where tax is 2%. The US government would then technically make them pay the rest of the tax they would owe if they lived in the US. Its a law that actually makes sense for millionaires and is one of the few 'teeth' that the US has in terms of taxing them. However it's rarely enforced and easily avoided, and is indeed a bit odd. I would just remove it really simply because (like many laws) it's a hassle for people who it is intended to have no affect on (people actually living in foreign countries and really paying tax there) and easily avoided by those who it is intended to affect (people pretending to live in Monaco, while still spending 95% of their time split between random places around the world including the US)
If you moved to Canada you'd never pay 1 cent in tax, since rates in Canada are higher.
But his base doesn't believe that. He can't say that ANYTHING Obama did is good, since he has to maintain this facade that everything has gotten worse under Obama. He especially can't say that Obama has done good work for women since he's already drowning with that demographic. Romney will be talking about only one thing all election, unless the democrats can stop him...
"Everything is worse under Obama, all his economic policies have failed. That's why we still have a deficit. If I had been president there would ve only 2% unemployment and no deficit and lower taxes"
This is literally all he is going to say. It's his only chance. The democrats, if they are smart, will go after his running mate (who'll be from the far right) and push them on social issues forcing Romney to start taking stands like...
"Prayer in school is vital, and I will make it mandatory for all schools to offer it"
"Healthcare is only the concern of the individual getting it"
"Government research is bad"
"I will take steps to ban as many abortions as I can"
I would rather have Bernie Sanders or Feingold run.
Hopefully this bodes well for Santorum not being the VP nom, as well as having worse and worse chances for the next election.
He burned (and continues to burn) so many political bridges with this campaign. He's such an unbelievable moron, I can't fathom how he ever made it as far as he did.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Santorum will piss off enough party officials and important Republicans that he will break the "next in line" tradition the GOP has held to, by not winning the nom in 2016 if Romney loses.
Romney will pick a moderate VP that the Tea Party likes, not a social conservative.
My platform is: "I will not tax you, specifically you sitting right there reading this, while I will tax other people to pay for thing you want."
My name is JG Wentworth.
I'm surprised he didn't claim Bush was the one who signed the Ledbetter act. I mean, it would be blatantly false, but so is everything else Romney has ever said.
Steam: pazython
Not only can he not fully support it because it would be saying Obama did something right. He can't fully support it because it would be saying that a regulation on the free market that Obama put in place was good.
"Obama wants to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities and install rich white men as the God-appointed leaders of this country."
Wait, that one might actually backfire on them. I guess it has to be something repugnant to both sides.
The Tea Party doesn't want moderates. Any moderate will not be liked. You might as well be saying Romney will pick a Democrat the Tea Party likes.
kind of a weird idea.
Which moderate does the Tea Party like?.... Oh my god is Christie going to get the VP and then Romney will graciously bow out and give him the actual P and take the VP and we'll all be okay again oh I've got the vapors
Actually, what's up with the Tea Party? They've been basically out of the direct race coverage as far as I can tell. Did they like Santorum? Or were they all for... Perry? I honestly forget what their effect was predicted to be.
A few thoughts on this not unlikely prediction.
1.) The "Next in Line" theory is kinda, well, overblown in my opinion. It's true just enough to seem true, but I don't think it holds up to historical scrutiny.
2.) I can see where the GOP wouldn't put a social conservative on the ticket, they might (rightly) feel the need to reach out to the saner parts of the voting public. They DO want the Tea Party to die in a fire so they might think that they can prune the hedges a little bit by putting two moderates on the ticket. However that is going to backfire in two ways if the party does decide to go through with it.
Firstly, there'll be an immediate backlash in November. People are already not excited for Romney, if it's double Romney then that suppresses voter turnout in November even more or it gives a spoiler candidate (maybe a last chance third party run for Paul) the fire he needs to tank the conservative vote.
Secondly, when they inevitably lose to Obama the party will do what it did after 2008 when they ran McCain, decide that the ticket wasn't conservative enough. This will embolden the Tea Party and its No True Conservative bullshit, increasing the likelihood of a Santorum or Ryan or, yes, Perry, frontrunner in 2016 (voters have short memories IRL, so if Perry can do enough image buffering over the next four years, don't count him out).
Not to mention the fact that the Tea Party, by its very nature, hates moderate Republicans almost more than they hate Democrats so I don't see a "moderate that the Tea Party likes" existing.
Certainly not someone who is considered moderate by anyone other than the Tea Party.
But, it isn't an impossible route for the GOP to take, it just has a lot of risk with it. Who did you have in mind, @Spool32?
The old party elite seem to be bowing out and using this election cycle to let the Tea Party candidates blow out their steam and lose horribly, so that they can pick up the pieces in 2016 with a more coherent, and more tightly controlled, group of candidates.
See, that's the thing, if the Romney campaign was smart they'd be pulling for a Free Market Solution to Ledbetter, instead of just saying "I'm not going to talk about this."
It should be something along the lines of "Of course women should be paid commensurate with men. That's an American value. But unlike the President, I don't want to hurt the ability of women to find work by making it too expensive to hire women. That's what Ledbetter does, it hurts people who want to hire more workers, it hurts small businessmen, it hurts job creators, it hurts women, it hurts America."
It's bullshit, it's insane, but it's the kind of thing that plays with the sort of people who think "Can't raise the minimum wage or require better benefits, that hurts workers herp derp."
He'll lose his base with this. The rest is better to appease them, though.
That strategy would have worked pretty much every other election cycle in recent memory. The problem with doing that this year is that coming out against Ledbetter (regardless or how you couch your argument) just feeds into the War on Women narrative. He can't afford to give any more fuel to that issue, and he can't afford to suggest that any form of regulation is a good thing. He's literally in a lose/lose situation. There is no possible way for him to answer the question without stepping on a landmine. It's delicious.
They were the 60% of Republican primary voters who voted against Romney. They split their support between all the various Not Romneys, thus making sure that none of them could take the cake. This is because they're a pack of rabid dogs who tear each other apart at the slightest whiff of socialism, or as we call it, civilization.
No, see, they don't think that they're sexist or racist. So they say things like this all the time. They don't realize the things they're doing prove their bullshit wrong.
I think that's what some people around here forget sometimes.
There's nothing scarier than a self-righteous madman.
That's why Reagan was important to them. He made the party unified. Without that the factions tear each other to pieces. Fear and anger against a third party (like Democrats or terrorists or hostile nations) is only temporary. The cold war was another linchpin to keep the party in a tight coalition, too.
Fixed that for you.
It's scary how every follower seems to be in the same nutcase lockstep. You read comments on articles and you have people writing things like, "What a fool! He buys the liberal media narrative of a Republican war on women!" and you think, "Do these people think that required trans-vaginal ultrasounds are a made up thing like Hobbits?"
There's such a huge disconnect from what they do and how that causes them to be perceived..."Yeah, I go around slapping people and calling them assholes!...So, tell me again, why don't you want to spend time with me?"
You're right that not all believe their sexist or racist, but they will do it unconsciously. I definitely believe they have large numbers of genuine racists and sexists. The smart ones hide it in public.
I mean, you're right, but it's like my dear, dear grandmother.
If you say "hey, are you racist?" She'll deny it up an down. But then it's thanksgiving and she's telling about how she went in to vote and "tried her hardest" to vote for Obama but just couldn't do it.
Or my other grandma, who I'm fairly sure was against suffrage, but wouldn't cop to it.
Saying "I think women should be equal" is a thing they'll agree to (mostly and certainly enough that it won't hurt Romoney to say), but it's their actions which define them rather than their talking points.
I'd argue that until a black man won the presidency, the Republicans were good at falling in line with each other anyway. It was how they made so many strides during Clinton's term and more during Bush's. You'd have a few that would grouse but when it came time to vote they'd all follow the leader because "that's just the way things are done." The Democrats, otoh, did a lot more voting by conscience/appeasing donors and the Republicans jammed through legislation because of the divide.
Exactly.
Here's a nice little metaphor for what I've been seeing - and maybe it's always been there:
*two kids are playing in the schoolyard*
*GOP runs up and punches NonGOP*
GOP: Hah, take that punk!
*NonGOP hits GOP back*
GOP: Why did you hit me?! I am telling!
GOP: Teacher! Teacher! NonGOP hit me!
Teacher (aka Media/Dumbfuck Electorate/Soccer Moms/Independents/Libertarians): Now, NonGOP, you know it isn't nice to hit people. I don't know why you can't be a nice little boy, like GOP.