(01-02-2021 01:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 08:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 07:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dole based on 2018 tax returns is not definitive of people who "need it now". For example, a restaurant owner who made $200K in 2018 gets nothing, even though his restaurant has been closed for months while his expenses mount up.


I think the plan to help industries involves raising their taxes.

To the former, I’ve advocated for this before - don’t means test it. If you want to do that, do it after the fact to speed up distribution and account for circumstances in 2020.

But the people you vote for make means testing the litmus test for everything under the sun.

Means testing can have its time and place. Just because I disagree with it here doesn’t necessarily mean I disagree with it in all instances. Similarly, if I disagreed with the process completely doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t support a party that supports the use of it.

Do you completely agree with every single policy position, across the board, of the Republican Party?

Seems odd to think that one must agree with every policy position supported by their party of choice in a first past the post system that severely limits political parties.

First past the post? That depends on the federal/state/position in question lad.

Ask Perdue or Warnock if the system is 'first past the post' --- you might get a fundamentally different answer to that question.

Not even the so-called Presidential election (all 50 of them) cannot be described as such. Nor can the electoral college vote be denoted as such. You may want to rephrase your condemnation of US elections and politics based on that rationale.

Notwthstanding, glad to see a glimmer of 'non means test' from the 'means test everything in existence' crowd, whether the means is class, taxable salary, race, or sex.

Seriously - are you kidding me? You just bitterly argued semantics there, while completely ignoring the point (which was very clear).

The point is we have a winner takes all system - plurality of votes is what matters. That system, unlike a parliamentary style, reduces the chance of third parties gaining seats.

Do you disagree with my point?