The undecided voter thread: persuade me

[Ban Hammer 13,276]

2 hours ago, Oliversmom said:

  I possibly could have considered Trump (believe or not lol) except for the fact that he is going to eliminate the payroll tax.

i'd like to see a link to that - one from a reputable website at that.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Oliversmom said:

.    You have a good point about the election not just being for the president.  I have to check and see what local amendments we might have.  I remember I was passionate about voting in the election to do away with greyhound racing in Florida.  I need to see what they have this year.  I have just been so frustrated with the lack of a good candidate for president this year.  Like I said Trump has been good for the economy and may well continue to do so.  But there is the issue of the payroll tax.  That scares me.  And there is healthcare.  I keep hearing he wants to repeal Obamacare but he doesn't show a viable option.  Now Obamacare is NOT good - at least not for me.  I pay a high premium and have an astronomical deductible .  But I am on a lot of prescription meds and it does cover most of the cost of those for me.  Without Obamacare I would be lost.  I am an independent contractor so insurance through work is out of the question.  So in those respects Trump scares me.  Biden scares me.   Third party candidates are a waste of a vote in my opinion.  It is a very frustrating election.  

Well, you can always vote for the 401k reduction via Biden.  No need for people to save on taxes thru self-retirement.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

16 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Biden apparently just said that he'll debate, but only with fact-checking of the President during it.  Dream on.

I believe Burnt predicted this stipulation weeks ago

[TBoneTX 45,076]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I believe Burnt predicted this stipulation weeks ago

That's what Paul Krugman or some other such winner was pushing for.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

These people are not hard to read, they demand narrative control, looking at how they staged the House committee hearings, the way they're staging social media with censorship, the only way they'll allow Trump to debate them is if they can interrupt and narrate him. All there is to it. Trump would spend more time debating CNN/MSNBC/etc than Biden, as they interrupt him and even possibly cut him off. No reason to do it under those conditions. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,284]

5 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I believe Burnt predicted this stipulation weeks ago

 

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

That's what Paul Krugman or some other such winner was pushing for.

 

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

These people are not hard to read, they demand narrative control, looking at how they staged the House committee hearings, the way they're staging social media with censorship, the only way they'll allow Trump to debate them is if they can interrupt and narrate him. All there is to it. Trump would spend more time debating CNN/MSNBC/etc than Biden, as they interrupt him and even possibly cut him off. No reason to do it under those conditions. 

Did none of you see what I posted? Biden said HE would do the fact checking himself from the floor. I.e., he will call Trump out on what are or what he believes to be falsehoods, as part of the onstage proceedings. Not CNN, not anybody else. I mean, you can call it "refuting assertions" instead, which is what it is. Trump says X, Biden says it's Y not X because of Z, and then Trump can respond and show how Biden is wrong, if Biden is wrong. How is that so different from other debates? 

 

I even posted from a legitimate source -- the AP. This report is repeated through the wire service on many, many other sites. I really don't see what the fuss is. 

[Russ&Caro 1,549]

Response to original post:

 

I would highly suggest you watch at least one debate and decide for yourself.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

 

 

Did none of you see what I posted? Biden said HE would do the fact checking himself from the floor. I.e., he will call Trump out on what are or what he believes to be falsehoods, as part of the onstage proceedings. Not CNN, not anybody else. I mean, you can call it "refuting assertions" instead, which is what it is. Trump says X, Biden says it's Y not X because of Z, and then Trump can respond and show how Biden is wrong, if Biden is wrong. How is that so different from other debates? 

 

I even posted from a legitimate source -- the AP. This report is repeated through the wire service on many, many other sites. I really don't see what the fuss is. 

Of course he will... as soon as he figures out where he is, and what office he is running for.  

 

[laylalex 7,284]

15 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Of course he will... as soon as he figures out where he is, and what office he is running for.  

 

But you do understand that he never called for others to do fact checking, right? Because that's what people appear to be saying here, and that's not the case at all. It's important to point out when the facts don't support the argument.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But you do understand that he never called for others to do fact checking, right? Because that's what people appear to be saying here, and that's not the case at all. It's important to point out when the facts don't support the argument.

What's important to understand is that Joe hasn't been doing much of anything for himself lately.  But I'm sure you won't acknowledge that, any more than you are willing to admit you can't articulate why Trump is bad for America.  I understand.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 hours ago, Russ&Caro said:

Response to original post:

 

I would highly suggest you watch at least one debate and decide for yourself.

I will be straight with you. I have the means and the skills to sort out my views and choices on this topic. But thank you, that is a good suggestion.

 

The point is this is the Forum. The only forum related to debates about the culture, values and politics @visajourney

 

The forum was where the Romans practiced what they inherited from the Greeks: the Rhetoric and the Dialectic.  We did get some rhetorical and appeal to emotion statements, but very little of the dialectical discussion that truly moves a culture to a higher level. 

 

Still, the skills of copypasta from party web sites is formidable!

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

What's important to understand is that Joe hasn't been doing much of anything for himself lately.  But I'm sure you won't acknowledge that, any more than you are willing to admit you can't articulate why Trump is bad for America.  I understand.

Now now, there's no need to be condescending. I have my reasons for why I believe Trump is a terrible president and terrible for America, but I have no obligation to share them with you. We've gone down this road before and it didn't lead anywhere useful. 

 

But here's my question again, phrased a little differently: why is it when Biden says clearly that he will not use fact checkers during the debate, that somehow people on here believe that he will because..... why? Feelings? Hunches? Whispers? I'm not demanding an answer of you in particular, as that would be rather hypocritical. I'm just throwing it out there.

[Gobucks! 17]

If I wanted to live in a proglib cesspool of quasi-socialism I’d move back to Canada. Their stance on 1A and 2A are all I need to know. Dems and their lackeys fail miserably on both.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Gobucks!

[Oliversmom 250]

On 8/27/2020 at 9:10 PM, Ban Hammer said:

i'd like to see a link to that - one from a reputable website at that.

I wouldn't know where to find one - sorry.  I heard him say that during a news conference.  He said he was going to temporarily end the payroll tax and if he is reelected he will make it permanent.  When asked about social security he said they would get money from the general fund.  

[yuna628 9,665]

6 minutes ago, Oliversmom said:

I wouldn't know where to find one - sorry.  I heard him say that during a news conference.  He said he was going to temporarily end the payroll tax and if he is reelected he will make it permanent.  When asked about social security he said they would get money from the general fund.  

Currently, starting this coming Friday to Dec 31st, the IRS is saying that because of his 'order' employers should not collect SS tax out of a paycheck if you make under a certain amount, baring Congress not fixing this issue. This means a modest boost to each paycheck you receive, however, little guidance on the subject has been given and it will turn into a nightmare for employers and payroll. Some people might be amused by the pay raise, however come 2021, the IRS will require employers to effectively reduce paychecks to collect that all back. Several financial publications did the math and it was a significant amount, more than many employers are willing to remove from their employees paychecks which would create a severe hardship on all parties involved. Therefore many employers will choose to ignore the administrations 'directive'. If this deferment (as in the IRS never recoups the taxes) is made permanent Social Security will be bankrupt by 2023. If the employers choose to accept to defer and not pay the taxes back by garnishing out of your wages in 2021, penalties and interest will accrue which YOU or your employer are going to be responsible for. The high liabilities and no guarantees of a solution by the IRS has made many employers balk at this false choice and decide to completely ignore the IRS. They will continue to collect the taxes out of your pay as normal. Of course this will depend on the employer so it's best to ask what they will decide to do with your money.