Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
That is correct. Nowhere in the press release is the word murder found.
of course not. No medical examiner would ever say that. The critical point from the autopsy is that the determination was that Chauvin killed George. And that is what they determined.
The difference between a Prosecutor and a Medical Examiner is that only one must legally provide evidence for his conclusions. Can you guess which one that is?
You aren't really making any sense. The medical examiner determines cause of death (which was homicide). That autopsy is then evidence in the trial which will be used by the prosecutor.
Since every medical professional involved appears to agree that Chauvin killed George, the defense needs to be able to provide some sort of convincing argument that it was something else. But there is no evidence that it was something else.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Again: so what’s your point?Based on the report you can’t determine guilt. Burden of proof is on the prosecution not defense. “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I'm not understanding your confusion. The points of the case are this
1) that Chauvin killed George by kneeling on his neck. That is what the autopsy says
2) that when chauvin did this, he had no defensible reason for doing this. He wasn't trained to do that. He wasn't permitted to do that. This has been testified to by his superiors
3) the fact that Chauvin killed him and the fact that he was engaging in excessive force when he did it, is murder.
Which, if any, of those points are you saying isn't true?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Both of their deaths were ruled homicides and both officers walked. Wanna explain that to me?
You seem to be conflating the words "Homicide" and "murder". They aren't the same thing. Homicide isn't a crime. It is a cause of death.
Any time a person kills another person, it is homicide, but it isn't always a crime. If someone tries to murder me and I kill them in self defense, I haven't committed a crime. But I have a committed a homicide.
In those cases you referenced, the homicide was ruled to not be a crime (self defense etc). That is why they weren't convicted of any crimes. But they both still committed a homicide. That was never in question.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s not the medical definition of homicide. I defined the medical definition on the previous page. Medical examiners found homicides for Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Both officers walked.
Homicide means one person killed another. It is possible for a homicide to not be a crime. Like self defense. That is justifiable homicide.
The medical findings are that Chauvin killed George. Whether or not that is murder is up to the courts.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re admitting that homicide doesn’t mean that Chauvin killed Floyd and then proceed to say Chauvin killed Floyd. #Logic
no, you are misunderstanding. homicide means Chauvin killed floyd. That is what the autopsy findings are. Whether that is murder or not is up to the courts.
Homicide is just a classification used when the other 4 aren’t applicable.
homicide means one person killed another. In this case, Chauvin killed George. What is unclear about that?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
oh boy, now you are coming back with the "crush the neck" claim? I am sure the defense team will have no problem discrediting that specific claim.
that is literally the finding of both autopsies. You are just going in circles now. I am coming back with "claims" by quoting the findings of the autopsy?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm saying when someone makes life-altering choices that forces a cop to kill him partly because the person doesn't want to live anymore, suicide-by-cop isn't an option for a coroner.
ok. but that is completely irrelevant to this case. Homicide means the cop killed them. whether that is justified or not isn't something the coroner considers. That is for the police and/or the courts to decide.
Both autopsies have confirmed that Chauvin killed George. Are you conceding that fact?
Man, your reading for detail is SO bad. Nowhere does Chauvin's name appear in the autopsy report. Why are you making shit up?
no, it says he was killed by the restraining of the police and "neck compression". Unless there was some other cop crushing George's neck, there is no question that the autopsy ruled chauvin killed george.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Same with any other cop trial. In fact, nearly EVERY suicide-by-cop type trial has homicide listed on the report because there is no option for any other listing.
this response makes no sense. You are saying in cases where a cop kills someone, homicide is what is on the autopsy. But that is what "homicide" means. It means someone killed someone else. In George's case that is what is in dispute. IE did Chauvin kill him or was it something else? The autopsy says Chauvin did it. Are you conceding that Chauvin killed him?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Still glad to see you’re walking back on your asphyxiation claims tho
I never made "asphyxiation claims". I said Chauvin killed George, which is true.
So in a medical examiner’s report “homicide” just means one person intentionally did something that led to the death of someone else. It doesn’t mean the death was intentional and it doesn’t mean it was a crime.”
I know. I explained that pretty much verbatim to greyparrot. A medical examiner doesn't determine if someone is guilty of a crime, that is the job of the courts. They rule on what killed a person. In this case, Chauvin killed george by kneeling on his neck. That is what the autopsy says.
If, for example, Chauvin had been following police training and guidelines on how to restrain someone and george had died, Chauvin would probably be innocent as he was just doing his job. But he wasn;t. He was using excessive force and for far longer than could possibly be justified. so the facts are
1) chauvin was using excessive force on george for far longer than could be justified in defiance of police protocol. (as testified by his superiors)
2) this led to the death of George, as per the findings of 2 autopsies
3) since Chauvin was breaching the rules for what he was supposed to be doing and thereby killed george, that is murder. Whether it is 2nd degree muder or 3rd degree (manslaughter) is still an open question though.
I meant George Floyd. Provide sources that state the medical examiner Andrew Baker stated in his report that George Floyd died to asphyxiation.
that is a misdirect. I have already told you what Andrew baker determined the cause of death to be. and it was homicide as caused by "restraint, and neck compression"
That’s how courts work in case you didn’t know.
they ignore the findings of autopsies? I don't think you know how courts work.
This analogy doesn’t even make sense lol. The autopsy would state that he died because of cuts and like and therefore the guy would be guilty.
the autopsy says he died by "restraint, and neck compression" by Chauvin. You are then trying to get me to prove he died of asphyxiation. But that is obviously a misdirect. My analogy makes perfect sense because I have told you over and over what the autopsy says and you keep trying to get me to prove it says something else.
You can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin kneeling on him caused that when Floyd had 3x the OD level of fentanyl + methamphetamine + alcohol + he had adrenaline rush because he was being arrested.
there's no evidence that killed him. and even if that did play a role, Chauvin breaking police protocol and kneeling on his neck would still have played a critical role in his death and he would still be guilty of murder.
Only 1 autopsy matters in this case and that’s the one done by Andrew Baker.
no, both autopsies matter. Especially since they both agree that Chauvin killed George.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You haven’t cited any sources that state that Andrew Baker, the state’s medical examiner died due to asphyxiation.
what? is andrew baker dead?
Rather the prosecution themselves in their criminal complaint bring up the fact that Bakers “findings include that Floyd did not die from asphyxia or strangulation.”
the official findings are that George died by homicide caused by "law enforcement subdual,restraint, and neck compression". You are trying to distract by throwing out very specific medical terms. It's like if a guy was stabbed to death and some idiot just kept saying "the autopsy confirms he wasn't shot, so i'm innocent!". 2 Autopsies confirmed that Chauvin killed George. Why are you splitting hairs about the precise medical terminology of how he killed him?
Other “experts’” opinions are irrelevant since they didn’t do the autopsy or they’re biased beyond belief which is the case of the Floyd families person who did the autopsy.
all autopsies done have agreed that Chauvin killed george by homicide.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nice way to dodge. If you claim that Floyd died of asphyxiation, why is that NO WHERE in the autopsy?
The finding of the autopsy is that he died as a result of "restraint, and neck compression" and that Geroge died by homicide. How is this unclear?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fine, show me where the evidence is for their findings.
Again, your argument is that multiple medical professionals agree that Chauvin killed george. But you choose not to believe them. That isn't based on facts or information. You are just choosing to believe what you want to believe.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Probably because it does not exist.
so your argument is that the people who did 2 separate autopsies are just lying to try to frame him? You realize that's crazy right? Maybe it's all a deep state plot to destroy the Minneapolis police!!!
The much more logical explanation is that they know what they are talking about and you lack the medical expertise to understand the autopsy report.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Based on what autopsy evidence?
the evidence in the 2 separate autopsies? Are you expecting me to provide a detailed medical account based on years of medical experience? Because I don't have that. You know who does have that? the people who did the 2 separate autopsies and concluded that Chauvin crushed George to death.
Why are you citing a medical report that says Chauvin killed him as some sort of evidence that he didn't? It is nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The medical examiner can say an elephant killed Floyd and it would hold the same weight in court as him declaring it was a homicide. Did you even read the disclaimer on the propaganda press release?
you're just repeating what I already told you. the medical examiner can't say it was murder. And he isn't saying that. What he is saying is that Chauvin killed George by crushing him with his knee. Whether Chauvin killing him is murder is up to the court to decide, But Chauvin killed him. That is what 2 autopsies have said.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How about you point to me in the autopsy report the evidence that Floyd's neck sustained trauma that contributed to his death since HB can't seem to find it either.
lol, this is just sad. The official finding from that autopsy was that George died from homicide due to "neck compression". I already provided that for you. You simply choose to ignore what the findings were and cherry pick specific chunks of the report that suit what you want to believe. But somehow still cite the autopsy that determined it was homicide. That kind of double think is baffling.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Autopsy clearly shows Chauvin did not "crush" the man's neck. Nowhere on the contusion part of the autopsy is ANY injury described around the neck.
So, your argument is to cherry pick details out of the report, but to completely ignore what their findings were? You realize the findings of the autopsy you are quoting determined the police killed him, right?
Chauvin is going to walk and there will be riots because people can't read and don't know the difference between a medical examiner and a forensic scientist.
it would appear that your issue is that you can't read. The official findings of 2 different autopsies was that George was killed by homicide. The Minneapolis police have testified that Chauvin was, in no way, following his training by crushing george like that. Chauvin is quite obviously guilty.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but i could see it being such, that floyd was dead man walking, on fire so to speak. the policeman was a spark, but if floyd was already on fire, should a spark be the cause of him getting burned to death?what do you think of this analogy?
I can soak myself in gasoline and walk around if I want. If someone walks up to me and throws a lit match on me, they still murdered me. A spark can be murder.
Chauvin has been proven to have been using excessive force on George. If this contributed to his death, then chauvin is guilty. If it was 50% drugs and 50% the stress of being choked, Chauvin is guilty. In order to be clear, they would need to be able to show reasonable doubt that George was going to die no matter what Chauvin did. But given the circumstances of George's death and the medical findings of 2 autopsies as well as the doctor that received george at the hospital, that would be very hard to do in my opinion. All the available evidence says Chauvin is guilty of some degree of murder. Whether through negligence and excessive force, or through depraved indifference to george's life.
I'm not a lawyer, but i believe the only thing to be determined at this point is:
1) did chauvin's actions contribute to or cause George's death? If so, then Chauvin is guilty of some degree of murder
2) was it just negligence and excessive force? If so, then it is manslaughter. If was depraved indifference to George's safety, then it could be 2nd degree murder. IE if you drive down the sidewalk and kill someone, that isn't manslaughter, it's 2nd degree murder. Given than Chauvin kept crushing him even after he stopped resisting and even after he stopped moving, that could show he didn't care if he killed George.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i agree that he's guilty at this point, just not murder, manslaughter fits.
Sorry, I think there is some confusion in terminology. Manslaughter is murder. It is 3rd degree murder.
if the situation is such that floyd was a dead man walking, can we be sure without doubt that the policeman was the cause?
short of the cause of death being super obvious (like a bullet hole in the head), it is often hard to be 100% certain in an autopsy. Can be be 100% certain about the cause of death? no. But unfortunately it often isn't possible to get that. So the autopsy is just another piece of evidence.
i think the answer is that we should trust the autopsy. but i think it's plausible to question the autopsy.
that's fair. There are lots of cases where different doctors come to different conclusions about cause of death. It often isn't something we can be 100% certain of.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority."
that is legal boiler plate. they can't determine if something is legally homicide or not. for example if I shoot someone that is homicide. If I shoot him in self defense, it is still homicide, but is it justifiable homicide. They are saying they can't say if the cop that killed him is guilty of murder. All they can say is that their official finding is that the cop killed him.
You're such a mouthbreathing CNN watcher. You don't even read your own documents.
I did, you simply didn't understand basic words or their meaning. Also, again, I don't watch CNN. I don't know how much clearer I could be.
A press release is not an autopsy report.
No, an autopsy report is an autopsy report. And the official cause of death, as per the autopsy, is that it was homicide. If you think otherwise, please show me what they ruled the cause of death to be. But you won't be able to, because the cause of death (from 2 autopsies) was homicide.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
notably, The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s handwritten notes on the first couple of pages of Exhibit A said, “if [Floyd was] found dead at home alone + no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an [overdose].”
Basically, that statement is "if the facts of the case were different, i would draw a different conclusion". But the facts aren't different. He didn't die at home, alone. He dried with a cop crushing him. It's like if someone is found dead in their home with their wrists slashed and the knife sitting next to them. Theres a good chance it was suicide. But if they were found with a man slashing their wrists, those odds go down considerably.
The autopsy doesn't say he died of drugs or a heart condition. It says he died by homicide.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think the medical examiner said that the cause of death was asphyxiation, but that it could have been caused by either strangulation or by drugs.
more than 1 autopsy was done. The Hennepin county medical examiner ruled it a homicide as a result of the police "restraint" and "neck compression"
how much do you think this leaves open for debate how much the death was caused by the policeman and how much by the drugs?
who said it was drugs? Could you provide me a link to their findings?
and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation?
If Chauvin was breaching procedure and engaging is excessive force (which he was), if this contributed to George's death, then he is guilty of murder. Since we know he was breaching procedure and engaging in excessive force (as testified by his superiors), it seems pretty clear cut that he is guilty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The doctor that did the autopsy concluded George's death was homicide.
Your link doesn't seem to include a cause of Death. Here you go. There is the cause of death determined by the autopsy you are linking to. That autopsy concluded it was homicide.
maybe makes perfect sense to a perfect mouthbreathing CNN worshipper
I don't watch CNN, let alone worship it.
that has not seen one minute of police footage of a suspect having pressure on the BACK of the neck and being able to breathe fine since the trachea is physically located at the front of the neck.
so your evidence is that in other cases of excessive force, some people didn't die? But in this case of excessive force, the victim did die.
Not to mention if you can't breathe, you can't say that you can't breathe.
if your airway is being crushed, you can still get some air, just not enough. You would be able to gasp and say you can't breathe. You would then slowly lose consciousness, then die. And that is exactly what happened to george. He was slowly asphyxiated by Chauvin who continued to do so even after George stopped resisting and after he lost consciousness.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am conceding it is an open and shut case of a deviation from a policy violation that may or may not have led to the death of a person, but that isn't what this police officer is on trial for.The 2nd part isn't going to be able to be proved, and I think you know this.
So lets get the facts straight
1) the officer was using excessive force on George. both because he wasn't supposed to be kneeling on his neck at all and also because there was absolutely no justification for continuing to do it after George stopped resisting, which Chauvin did for several minutes.
2) The doctor that received George in hospital testified that he died of asphyxiation. Which given Chauvin was kneeling on his neck would make perfect sense.
3) The doctor that did the autopsy concluded George's death was homicide.
So we know Chauvin was not following training. He used excessive force and for far longer than could possibly be considered necessary. And multiple doctors have ruled George's death was a homicide.
So what exactly are you arguing is Chauvin's defense? The evidence says he is guilty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But if the prosecutor cannot prove that the violation of that specific procedure caused a person's death, then it means nothing at all.
So you concede that he was using a restraint he wasn't supposed to be using. You concede he did it far longer than anyone could logically explain using it. Medical examiners have concluded this restraint caused his death.
Sounds like you are conceding it is an open and shut case of murder.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It would still be a breach of procedure. But even if it weren't, that argument ends the second he stops resisting. Chauvin kept doing it long after this point until he had killed him. That's murder.Then you my friend do not know police procedure.
I am not a police officer. But I did look it up. Here is article discussing what police procedure is in Minneapolis. Here you can see Chauvin's own supervisor saying he had no justification to be doing this.
So if you think you know better, please explain why you know what the correct procedures for the Minneapolis police are better than the Minneapolis police.
Have you considered his supervisor may have a political agenda and his testimony goes against published pieces that detail how prone restraint is legal and is taught during training?
I've provided evidence showing Chauvin broke procedure, including testimony from his commanding officer. You've provided absolutely nothing. If you think that was correct police procedure in Minneapolis, then provide evidence of that. Otherwise, concede that he broke procedure.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What if I told you that it was the case that the neck restraint was used because he was actively resisting and suffered symptoms of a condition that caused the active restraint.
It would still be a breach of procedure. But even if it weren't, that argument ends the second he stops resisting. Chauvin kept doing it long after this point until he had killed him. That's murder.
What if I told you that it was procedure to hold the knee on the neck until EMA arrived because of this condition?]
If you said that, you would be lying. His own supervisor testified there was no justification for Chauvin doing this.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I just 'don't hold to the argument that George Floyd was 'intentionally killed.
You can murder someone without intending to kill them. Your drunk driver or reckless driver examples are murder. In this case, police officers are trained in specific ways to restrain people. Chauvin chose to do something dangerous he wasn't trained to do and caused someone to die. that is murder. Choosing to continue crushing him after he stopped resisting was a clear breach of police policy and showed callous disregard for his wellbeing. and that caused his death.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What if I told you that he did follow procedure and putting his knee on his neck/back area was something that was taught in training?
If he followed his training then in my opinion he wouldn't be criminally responsible for it. The fault would be in the training or whoever wrote the training manual. However we know that isn't the case. He was not trained to to do that. He certainly wasn't trained to continue doing it after George stopped resisting. So the fact that he broke police procedure and continued crushing him even after George stopped resisting (after having been told repeatedly george couldn't breath) means he is guilty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So no matter how you look at it, Chauvin was not following proper police procedure.That's irrelevant, especially with the settlement the city gave that put the blame on the cities police policies instead of a scapegoat.
A police officer broke police procedure, did not follow his training, used excessive force on someone after they had stopped resisting and caused a man to die. If he had followed proper procedure and he died, then he would probably be ok. He would have been doing what he was trained to do. In this case, he didn't do what he was trained to do and he killed a man.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty easy to prove in court though. It was police policy up until 2016 to kneel on the neck, and there are hundreds of hours of Bodycam footage with a suspect being restrained with a knee to the back (not the front) of the neck and being able to breathe just fine. One outlier doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
A quick google search confirms that what Chauvin did was not proper police procedure. Here is one article I found which says that it is sometimes permitted to use neck holds on suspects, it requires specific training and that the way chauvin did it was not a method Minneapolis police are trained to do it. And even more so, they are not supposed to keep doing it after the person stops resisting, which Chauvin did.
Here is testimony from Chauvin's supervisor which confirms that they should have stopped using this level of force once he stopped resisting.
So no matter how you look at it, Chauvin was not following proper police procedure. He continued kneeling on a man long after he stopped resisting which lead to or contributed to his death. I think it is beyond question that he should never be a police officer again. And I would say it is pretty clear he is guilty of some level of murder charge. He broke police procedure and caused a man's death. It shows a complete disregard for human life, which is certainly not a trait that should be permitted in police.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
well argued. yes it does boil down to medical testimony. and, even if he gets away with murder, he should be punished in some way for going too far.
I would say it is a combination of the medical report and the police procedure. From what I understand it is a breach of police procedure to kneel on someone's neck. If nothing else, he needs to be punished for that. So even if it could be medically proven that kneeling on his neck had nothing to do with his death (which seems highly unlikely), that man should never wear a badge ever again. He obviously broke procedure and had absolutely no regard for the survival or wellbeing of George.
If the medical finding is that kneeling on his neck contributed, in any way, to his death, then he is guilty of at least manslaughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
My only objection is against the idea that the fortunes of the typical American aren't related to the stock market, that it only matters for rich people.
that is a fair point. I did not mean to imply that it would have no effect on "common people". It would have a short term effect on the market. That seems pretty likely. But any significant change to the economy or tax laws will do that. So I don't see that as an argument against a wealth tax. I see that as an important factor to take into account when implementing it to help to protect those people.
The majority of the megabillionaires like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos gained their wealth through an ownership stake in a company they created that became huge. If there's a wealth tax, Bezos isn't likely to dump all of his shares in Amazon at once but would presumably liquidate the amount required to pay the tax every year. This would create a constant stream of new shares entering the market every year at tax time. Obviously that would create downward pressure
this is a pretty big assumption. That would require him to give up more and more control over his company that could potentially lead to him losing control of it. I assume that he would certainly need to liquidate some of his stock, certainly early on. But once the uber wealthy adapt to the existence of the new tax, they would learn to keep more of their wealth in a more liquid form. I don't see Bezos slowly selling off all his stock.
And even if it did, more people would be happy to buy into the stock. So as long as the company is continuing to do well, there is no reason why demand wouldn't meet the supply.
Personally, I feel that a marginal tax rate of 45% for income over $500k a year is more than fair, and not nearly high enough to damage the economy. I would prefer higher marginal income tax rates to a wealth tax any day
I would agree if the effective tax rate was that high. but it is nowhere near that. The effective tax rate on the richest people has been falling for decades and is about half of what you are proposing. So yeah, doubling the tax rates on the top tax bracket would probably raise lots of money too. But they are very good at lobbying for exceptions, which is why they probably pay a lower effective tax rate than you do.
If I'm a very rich US citizen and I own a company incorporated in Germany I don't think the German government would look too kindly on the US government demanding to take a bite out of that company every year.
no one is talking about the US government taking a "bite" of the company. Since the US government cannot own shares of a company, you could not pay with such. You would be taxed (assuming your net worth is 10's or 100's of millions) an amount in USD.
I imagine people would find a way around that exit tax (is it even legal to tax someone for renouncing their citizenship? By what authority, since they are no longer a citizen?)
I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't it be? You would be taxing them before they renounce it.
I see no reason to encourage the uber wealthy to leave...I understand the bitterness over inequality but you're so much better off creating a more equitable society through higher taxes on wealth created in the future and pro-worker reforms instead of blowing up the whole system.
I'm certainly open to the idea of a much higher effective tax rate on the rich instead. However the last 70 years have proven that this is very difficult, if not impossible. They simply have too much leverage on the US government. They find ways to put in loopholes to avoid it. The only way to prevent that is to make a cut and dry system with little to no exceptions. Otherwise the lobbyists for the uber wealthy will simply write in so many exemptions we get where we are now, where the rich pay a lower tax rate than the poor.
I don't see this as a loophole so much as a necessity. How much is a particular Picasso painting worth at auction? You have no clue until its ACTUALLY auctioned!
I didn't say it was simple. But you could require that such assets get professional appraisal of value every X number of years. But excluding them entirely just makes it super easy to avoid the tax.
Created:
-->
@Vader
According to Justin Trudeau, ala the biggest liar and hypocrite, he instates that if you dare travel outside your country and get COVID, you can not quarantine in your house, but you have to go a government facility in the country and cannot return?
A quick google search tells me that this isn't true. The information I found says you must book a stay in a hotel from an approved list for quarantine. So no one is has to go to a government facility. they have to go to a hotel until they can prove they aren't spreading a deadly disease.
By punishing them for getting a disease so they can't see the ones they love and are forced into facilities.
no one is being punished. They are required to take proper precautions to keep them from spreading a deadly disease. That is entirely reasonable. And also, these rules are overwhelmingly popular in Canada. Polling has found that 77 per cent of those asked disagreed with the idea that the travel restrictions are “too stringent and excessive,”
So the government is taking steps to keep people safe, and the large majority of Canadians approve. So why is it "poor Canadians" because their government is doing what they want it to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
45% of americans own no stocks at all. who are they if not the "common man"?Where are you getting that number?
this isn't the same source i was using for my last post (i don't remember precisely which one i was looking at). But here is a different one saying that 52% of americans "have some market investment mostly from owning retirement accounts such as 401(k)s." So according to the federal reserves most recent info (2016), about 48% of americans own no stocks whatsoever.
I’m not happy about it, but the entire American system basically is predicated on the big line going up. A permanent or long term stock market crash would harm the average person more than the wealthy even if they don’t hold as much. Joe Six Packs $100k turning into $65k is a much bigger deal than Robert Bruce III’s $10 mil turning into $6.5 mil.
I don't disagree with that. But that still isn't an argument against a wealth tax. Your argument seems to be the system is broken and if we tax rich people, then it will expose the broken system and we will see the problems we need to fix. But assuming the tax did cause a serious market downturn (which i don't necessarily agree that it would) the problem is the market, not the tax that exposes the problem.
Before supporting a policy that would place permanent and extremely strong downward pressure on stock prices you’d need to find some way to decouple average Americans with the stock market.
I don't understand why you would think it would be a permanent downward pressure? Having the uber rich need to sell of stocks would shake up the market, that is true. It would create some uncertainty and result in downward stocks prices (because the market hates uncertainty). But then the market would get used to it and it would get priced in. Then the downward pressure is resolved. Having more stocks being traded doesn't mean the stocks are worth any less. And if it does cause the stocks to be worth less, it is because the market was over valuing them. Which, again, is not a flaw of a wealth tax. It is just exposing the flaws of the market that already exist.
All this assumes that the tax would be successful at taking their wealth which I doubt it would. In the long run the state would probably get less revenue.
how so?
but that doesn’t mean trying to take his wealth would actually solve the problem, as opposed to creating even more.
it would solve lots of problems. It would make lots of projects attainable. Things like universal health care, educational programs etc would be able to be funded. It would be hugely beneficial to the "common man" who routinely gets screwed over with massive debts trying to get an education or healthcare.
Would it be better if Zuckerberg gave most his wealth to the poor and kept only a measly billion dollars, yes. But would a wealth tax actually force him to liquidate his assets, or would they just be moved overseas?
the beauty of a wealth tax is that it doesn't matter if he moves his assets overseas. US tax law already says that US citizens are subject to US taxes no matter where in the world they are. So if he is a US citizen and he has wealth, then it could be taxed no matter where in the world it is. European countries didn't really use this method, so millionaires could just move to another country and dodge the tax. But that wouldn't work for an american wealth tax. The only way to dodge it is to renounce your citizenship. But that has huge business and personal implications. Also, depending on which tax plan you take, you can implement an "exit tax" as part of the plan. IE if you are a billionaire and you renounce your US citizenship, you must pay a tax of X% (for example Elizabeth warren's plan was 40%). This would make doing this much less desirable.
Another flaw in European efforts was that they built in loopholes. They made exceptions for things that were harder to value (art, antiques etc). So rich people could pour their money into the exempted categories of stuff and dodge the tax too. If you create a wealth tax without those exemptions, it is harder to dodge.
yet another flaw of the wealth tax laws was they set the bar low. They were intended to hit millionaires as well as billionaires. So there were lots of people who might own their own business worth a million dollars, but have little actual cash. This created a larger pool of people who were affected by the tax, and a significant number who couldn't actually pay it without crippling their business. Most proposals i have seen for this in the US set the bar pretty high (in the 10's or hundreds of millions). So it isn't likely to affect someone who just owns a business. It would affect people with huge stock portfolios or own multiple businesses. It makes it easier to enforce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
he common man actually does own stock these days through retirement accounts.
45% of americans own no stocks at all. who are they if not the "common man"?
The $150k in the 401k of 60 year old Joe working class may not represent a huge portion of the US market cap, but it’s a big deal to him. Outside of social security and maybe a house it’s probably all he has and a large stock market crash would actually hurt him more than the Uber wealthy who lose millions on paper but see no actual decline in lifestyle
i'm not arguing that a market crash is a good thing. It obviously isn't. But if the wealthy being forced to sell of a small percentage of their shares causes those shares to fall, then the problem isn't the tax. it is the fact that market has over valued the stocks. Your argument does not actually argue that a wealth tax is bad. It argues that the fact that it might reveal structural problems in the economy is bad. But those problems would exist either way. Revealing such problems doesn't mean the tax would be a bad idea. especially if the profits of the tax are then used to help the "common man". The large majority of people would end up better off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the stock of every company crashes, then our economy is destroyed and we go into a depression.
so your argument is that passing policy will show us the horrible problems that exist. so we should do nothing, allow those horrible problems to continue to exist and pray no one realizes? That doesn't seem like a good idea.
For that common man, they own stock with the assumption that it would go up, and if it crashes, they end up selling all of their stock, and you've basically destroyed $30 trillion worth of wealth in the country.
you have a giant flaw in your premise. the "common man" doesn't own many, if any, stocks. 45% of americans own no stocks at all. of the 55% that do, most are in retirement accounts like a 401k where they are unlikely to sell their stocks.
So the idea that a stock market recalculation would cause the "common man" to sell off stocks is silly. Most "common people" have no stocks to speak of, and those that do probably aren't in a position to sell them off anyway.
The stock market falling would overwhelmingly affect the richest 10% of the population as they own about 84% of all stocks (as of 2016).
But then the increased revenue from the wealth tax can be used to help the "common man".You've destroyed all the wealth.
lol, no. If common sense policy causes the value of a stock to fall, then it was never worth what it was trading for. The market is simply over valuing it. So you haven't "destroyed" any wealth at all. You have simply exposed a market overvaluation. If this were to happen, it is the market that is wrong, not the policy "destroying wealth".
If the government sells tens of billions of shares of stock all at once, there will be a huge influx of supply, which causes the price to plummet and the government gets pennies on the dollar of stock value.
The government cannot sell shares because the government cannot own shares. So your assertion makes no sense.
At best, America goes into a depression. At worst, the whole world does. I imagine the latter scenario is more likely
your conclusion is incorrect because you are using faulty assumptions to come to it. IE that the government can and would sell of shares. But the government cannot own shares. therefore they cannot sell them. Therefore they cannot trigger the rest of your assumption.
The stock won't correct its self. We would go into a depression and I don't know how we are going to get out of it.
if the rich being forced to sell some of their shares in order to pay common sense taxes causes the share price to drop, then it is because the market is over valuing the shares. If more shares being traded tanks the price, then the market simply hasn't been calculating the price correctly. This happens all the time in the stock market. The market doesn't ever show you what something is worth, it shows you what a handful of rich investors thinks it is worth. And often it does not even show what they think it's worth, it just reflects the hopes and fears of rich people.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think the US presence in ISIS is causing more people to want to join ISIS. ISIS has killed 30,000 people in the middle east. This isn't good, but America has killed 300,000 people in the middle east. From the perspective of any common middle easterner, they don't like ISIS, but they hate America (since we kill more people). Because of that, they side with ISIS as they are the lesser of the 2 evils in their view. If America stopped bombing civilians in the middle east, I think the middle east will turn on ISIS and the middle east can be free.If America is going to give weapons to Saudi Arabia for their genocide in Yemen, we shouldn't be telling other places on how to have human rights. It's like a fat person telling you to run 6 minute miles.
this was pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
Every time you bomb a terrorist, you create a couple more. That guy's children, his cousins etc along with the friends and family of the almost guaranteed bystanders that get killed or maimed. Trying to fight terrorism with bombs is stupid on the face of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the ultra rich sell their stocks, since the supply to demand ratio of stocks in the stock market would skyrocket, the price of the stock would plummet and if the stock market ceases to grow because the rich are spamming stock into the stock market, people lose their desire to invest and as a result
if that were to happen, then that isn't a problem with a tax, it is a problem with the market. I.e. if the uber rich needing to sell a portion of their stocks causes the price of a stock to crash, then the stock was never worth that much to begin with. That is a market problem. So the tax would just be exposing a flaw that already exists.
by trying to help the common man out, you instead have deprived them of all their stock's value.
the vast, vast majority of stocks are owned by the uber rich. The "common man" doesn't own that many stocks. A large percentage of the population owns no stocks at all. So saying you are "depriving the common man" doesn't make much sense. There might be a correction in the market where overpriced stocks fall as a result of the tax, but then the market will stabilize. This will hurt some of the "common" people (as you put it), but overwhelmingly it would affect the uber wealthy. But then the increased revenue from the wealth tax can be used to help the "common man". You could offer things like universal health care. And that would help the "common man" far, far more than what that might lose when the stock market corrects itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
so your argument is that if the uber wealthy have to sell some of their stocks in order to cover their taxes, that the world will end? why would you think that? if the uber rich sell stocks, other people buy them. that is how the stock market works.
If a billionaire selling a tiny fraction of his stocks tanks a stock price, then it wasn't actually worth the price it was selling for. In this scenario, the wealth tax isn't causing less growth, it is exposing a problem that is already there, an inflated stock price.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
You basically said you agreed that a wall was needed for border security and then decided that being pro wall was somehow xenophobic.
You appear to have misunderstood what I said. Fencing along a border makes sense. But that already existed before trump ever said he would run for president. This was built under Bush and Obama. Trump campaigned on building a wall that already existed pretty well everywhere that one would be useful. The only reason to campaign on building even more fencing, is because you want to scare/appeal to xenophobes who are so afraid/hateful of immigrants that they will sign up for any policy targeting them, even if it makes no sense and would waste a huge amount of money. "The wall" that trump was campaigning on served no real world purpose. It was a symbol and dog whistle for racists.
Fencing in and of itself is not a problem. Spending billions and billions on fencing in the middle of nowhere where it will serve no purpose just to appeal to rednecks and racists, that definitely is a problem.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do ungrateful people (and their children) deserve to starve to death?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'd have to disagree there. Walls work. They aren't all you need. You need patrols as well and other technology, but a wall is a crucial part of border defense.
no one disagrees with that. That was never in question. But there were already miles and miles of fencing along the border. The areas that needed a wall already had one. So trump's "wall" rhetoric was just stupidity and xenophobia. He wanted people to believe that hordes of evil mexicans were streaming across the border unchecked and that a wall would save us. But that is just stupid.
And putting up defenses to help keep unwanted individuals out of your country isn't a bad idea.
but spending billions and billions putting walls in the middle of no where and doing no good is a very bad idea. That is what trump was advocating.
Furthermore, most Republicans roll over on any issue whenever they are called "racist". They have no balls and only care about popularity.
lol, if that were true they wouldn't dog whistle racism. Yet they do it all the time.
Yeah, he did cave. I don't know why he put so many imbeciles in his cabinet that probably convinced him to work against his promises. I was always struggling to determine if he lied or is just a political idiot. I try to hope it is the latter. A lot of people blame his son-in-law Kushner. Not sure how much merit there is to that.
I'm certain trump is an idiot. But you don't fill your cabinet with people who are dead set against the policies you claim to be for if you are actually for them. You'd have to be a drooling imbecile to do that. It is far more likely he simply never cared about those issues. Then appointing people opposed to his campaign promises makes perfect sense.
He brought China to the bargaining table.
what does that even mean? nothing changed.
I was more concerned that he used it on allies and pissed them off... He didn't really use them as part of a coherent strategy, which I again blame on him not being particularly politically competent.
that isn't just politically incompetent. That is just incompetent. A successful businessman would know how to set a goal, make a plan and then execute it. Trump started using tariffs pretty much at random. And the end result was that he did more harm than good.
He was really the last hope for a dying America, so people clung too hard to him.
The KKK certainly think so.
He proposed a lot of good policies, but it is seeming more and more every day that most Americans are too uninformed to stick behind a platform of ideas and really only care about one or two issues.
strongly disagree. He campaigned on some good policies. Once he entered office, it was pretty uniformly shitty policies that came from his government. You can choose to believe that is because he was too weak and stupid to control his own government, but either way he was a shitty president.
So, we'll probably end up with the old free trade GOP and die out for the next 30-40 years.
I kind of doubt it honestly. Trump still wields alot of power, and he is a petulant child. He will reward anyone who is willing to kiss his boots. So whoever grovels hard enough, will get his endorsement. Sadly, it is looking like marjorie taylor greene and people like her are the future of the republican party. And while it is sad that insanity is going to take over a major political party. It will absolutely destroy the republicans ability to win elections outside of deep red states.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
He couldn't even get funding for a wall- his main campaign promise- when Republicans owned both houses of Congress.
yeah that was actually really funny. But to be fair, it was a stupid, stupid idea and a giant waste of money. The republican's are all for racism and xenophobia, but if they have to actually negotiate with democrats and exchange something for it, they are much happier focusing on getting more stuff for rich people instead.
So, it is quite reasonable to see that if he can't even get support on that, there was no way in hell he could replace Obamacare with anything decent or end foreign wars when both parties' politicians support foreign wars.
to be fair, he made no attempt whatsoever to do anything about healthcare. He didn't make one single suggestion, let alone fight for it. And he is commander in chief. He could have ordered the troops home. The problem is when the war hawks (which he put in his own cabinet) pushed back, he caved.
He didn't really start any new wars.
again, to be fair he did try to. He ordered an act of war on Iran and, by his own admission, called if off at the last minute.
He used tariffs, albeit not always wisely, to defend manufacturing.
but that means absolutely nothing. You are saying he used a tool, but didn't accomplish anything. You might as well say he used a gun to pick his nose. at least that way he wouldn't have caused a bunch of damage, as he did to millions of americans with his tarriffs.
Really, I think he was just incompetent. He always appointed people who didn't agree with any of his positions. He even had Bolton serving him for a hot second. He didn't coordinate tariffs with allies against China to stop IP theft. There were plenty of things he couldn't have done and a lot of things he could do that he didn't.
I 100% agree that incompetence played a large part in his presidency. But I don't think he really cared about most, if any, of his campaign promises. I think he cared about the parts that were good for him personally, like a huge tax cut for the rich, or improving relations with the saudis (who give trump lots of money). When it comes to anything that else, he just half assed it.
I'm hoping they actually take the right message. They need to realize that just shilling for low taxes, mass immigration, and free trade for the rich is a losing strategy.
so far i'm not hopeful. Both because of how trump's presidency went and because of how things are going now. Trump is throwing his support behind anyone who will spread his lies and kiss his ass. People like marjorie taylor greene are being championed by trump even though she is a hateful lunatic who believes in evil jewish space lasers starting forest fires. Sadly, that is the future of trumpism. Cultish worship of trump while pushing insane conspiracies.
But on the other hand, it cripples the right. No one will be able to survive on the right without kissing trump's ass and going along with his lies and insanity or they will be primaried. But the majority of americans don't want policians who are so obviously insane or evil (like greene). So it further destroys the right wing coalition. Which is good for the country.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There needs to be a Republican president who is much more intelligent who will speak to the issues of protectionism/manufacturing dying, not being war-hungry, takes immigration issues seriously, etc.
This is kind of the tragedy of trump. He talked about some policy positions that would have been a good things. Ending foreign wars, replacing obamacare with something better that would cover pre-existing conditions, fighting an entrenched corrupt government apparatus etc.
But once elected, he did basically none of the positive things he talked about. He basically let other people decide on all the policy while he was busy tweeting, golfing and holding rallies. So the republicans just carried on with the same horrible policies they've been pushing for decades and very little actually changed.
I think the core problem is that trump had no actual policy positions. He doesn't actually give a shit about any of the things he campaigned on because none of them actually affect him or anyone he knows. So when push comes to shove, he didn't even try to fight for things that didn't benefit him personally.
If a republican were able to actually run on those issues and actually fight for them, that would be interesting. but the only lesson republicans took from trump is that being a crazy asshole works.
Created:
noone except white supremacists or sociopathic businessmen who don't care what heat Trump brings to associate with, are going to deal with him and his family from now on.
have you seen the recent polling? Trump is, by a wide margin, the most popular republican politician (among republicans). If the primary were held today, trump would win the republican nomination. No question.
Writing off 30-35% of the country as "white supremacists or sociopathic businessmen" is a bit harsh. And it doesn't really help anyone. If you don't try to understand why people do the things they do, then you can't possibly prepare for it. Trump is a horrible person. But he speaks to the very real problems lots of people have. And those people care far more about "the swamp" (or whatever other issue it is they believe in trump over) far more than his mean tweets and corruption.
That being said, i don't think trump has any chance of winning a general election. But he would sail to an easy win the republican primary.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think he's going to try to act like he will run, but he wont commit to it for awhile.
I agree. He wants to play the big shot. He likes pretending like his endorsement is super valuable so he can pat himself on the back. He will try to stay relevant and keep the threat of another run on the table. It will allow him to grift alot more money.
he had a super low approval rating when he left office, so it's not like he's the favorite of all, to win.
I think the democrats would have to screw up really bad for trump to have a shot at winning again. But he is delusional enough that I doubt he knows that. He seems to swing wildly between understanding reality and completely rejecting. He sometimes seems like he really think he won the election which is some seriously delusional shit.
if he decides not to run, he will try to get his kids or someone he highly favors to run, so he doesn't risk losing again if it doesn't look good for him.
this would be tricky I think. None of his children have his con man charisma. His children are pretty dim and uncharismatic. I don't see any of them being a successful presidential nominee. Ivanka probably had the best potential for this, but she is too "liberal" (at least I think so, i don't claim to be a republican) for the republicans and she is forever tainted by her support of her father's abysmal presidency, so she couldn't possibly be a democrat.
bottom line, whether he will run again depends on 3 things
1) does biden completely screw up his presidency and make people long for another trainwreck of a trump term
2) do the democrats pick a candidate that is horrible
3) is trump so delusional and/or surrounded by such yes men that he is still disconnected from reality.
Given recent history, I'd say 2 and 3 are likely. 1 remains to be seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue in this thread. Science and politics are very different things. Sometimes public policy needs to strictly follow what scientists recommend. Other times, it isn't possible or feasible to implement what they recommend.
In all your rambling you forgot to mention a single thing in which Biden claimed he was following science but wasn't. But that is pretty much par for the course for right wing criticism. Heavy on emotion but super light on facts, logic or even making any sense. But if you scream loudly enough and long enough about death panels, election fraud no one can find, a super secret laptop, etc, then people on the right don't give a shit that it's all bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You didn’t specify what you were talking about lol. He got impeached and convicted in the Senate, that’s what matters imo lol.
So he was found innocent of the charges, but politicians chose to punish him anyway without any evidence. Why is that what matters in your opinion? Surely the trial and being found innocent because there was no evidence is the important point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Senate did convict him and he’s currently a member of The House of Representatives.
You clearly didn't read either the source or what I wrote. I said he was charged with those crimes and acquitted, which is true. He had his day in court and was found innocent of all charges. He was then impeached and convicted without any real evidence being presented.
The courts found him innocent, but congress decided to impeach him anyway without much, if any, evidence.
Created: