Originally Posted By: TurkeyJ
Holy shit. Did I just coax plutocrats, a buzz word usually reserved for the pages of the Nation, out of you?

Jokes aside, capital gains and carried interest tax deductions are a complicated ball of legitimate merit and abuses. Best solution I've heard is to keep them for long-term investments, eliminate them for short-term speculation. Try implementing that, though.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the GOP stood for something noble or correct. They stand for (forgive me) plutocracy and theocracy. Debate, reason and science be damned.


Yes and yes. Exactly.

On your last part regarding GOP... you seem to have the wrong idea of what the GOP *purportedly* stands for. Now, as to what much of the party has stood for in reality? Sure, you are more correct there.

Of course this is the fault of.... the GOP itself. What it stands for on paper is good. What it has stood for under Bush and Hastert and Boehner.... not so good.

I wouldnt toss plutocrat stones at GOP though, I know it seems counter intuitive to liberal leaning folks but the Dems are much better friends to plutocratic class than the GOP. Not to imply that the GOP does not have a huge stable of rent seeking plutocrats.... the Dems just have more.

You also wrote later: "Latinos - 50/50 until Bush-era politics. Fun fact: It's not Bush's fault."

Extremely correct here. Well, it was more 40/60 but still that is a winnable number for GOP. Giving up almost the entire latino vote so elements of the GOP can pander to certain anti immigration elements is absolutely silly... and as much as I loathe Bush, trying to make the Latino immigration situation make sense again was one thing he actually had right.

Last edited by Derid; 12/20/12 12:59 PM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)