He’s an idiot, it’s extremely close, go vote!

Have you read the voting rights act & the Supremacy Clause?

Why should it be taxed? Not “Why it shouldn’t”.

Because income is taxed. We have a progressive tax system, so the first small amount is untaxed, the next is taxed at a low rate, the next is taxed at a slightly higher rate, and so on through the tax brackets.

You’re now saying that salary and hourly employees wages should be taxed, but not tipped income. So my question remains, why shouldn’t it be taxed? Why create an inequity between different sources of income.

Imo, income tax should only affect the rich, and they aren’t working tipped jobs.

Not taxing tipped income doesn’t achieve your stated goal. The majority of low and middle income wage earners are still taxed. Altering the tax brackets would be more fair, and come closer to achieving your stated goal. Exempting tips remains a terrible idea.

It being a bad idea makes it a bad idea though. Why would this source of income be exempt from taxation? Why is that a good idea? Why is a salaried or hourly employee less deserving of having their income exempted?

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats…

So it’s the Democrats fault that people who aren’t Democrats don’t support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you’re ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you’re right. That’s pathetic.

Since 2012, the Democrats haven’t held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you’re uninformed. In fact, so much so that you’re a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one “they don’t have 60” excuse.

You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.

If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.

Dems haven’t shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker’s rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don’t do anything. It’s a tired refrain.

I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?

Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven’t had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.

They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn’t SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?

They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans’ attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

And SCOTUS wouldn’t gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate…you know, where it failed?

Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

No they couldn’t. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don’t do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don’t have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.

Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn’t overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.

What actions by Dems do you see as “coasting towards” fascism?

They’re both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.

I think we’re living in two different realities. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not sure how you even wrote this post.

Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn’t reasonable given our current system.

Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.

Moral of the story: Don’t listen to anyone, just get out and VOTE!!!

Their unequal treatment of Dem and GOP just proves they are no longer a news organization, just a propaganda machine.

It doesn’t prove that at all, and frankly it’s not true. They are part of a for-profit corporation. Their decisions are based on making money for shareholders, and not about journalism or informing the public. So if upsetting Trump, and his supporters, would cost them money, then they will withhold the information. Profit Über alles!

Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Google:

noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Me:

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.

What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.