Yeah, so that was fun. On Friday night, I went to a pub I frequent. It's a neighborhood dive bar. Pretty much everyone there knows each other. I kind of like that, as opposed to a meat-market bar. Toward the very end of the evening, one of the two owners there seemed insistent on talking about politics. He's tried engaging me in such discussions before and while I will listen and give feedback, I don't make my opinions known. I know he and I don't see eye-to-eye on much and I know he can lose his cool very quickly if another's opinion conflicts with his own. So, I've steered clear of doing that in the past, by just trying to play the peace-keeper, let all viewpoints be known without letting my own opinion be known.
This was again the case on Friday night. He talked about the Republican field and started with Newt Gingrich. I gave my opinion that I felt (and polls backed me up on this) that he was the less electable of the two, between he and Mitt Romney. I then did as I tend to do with him and said, "I'm not saying this to be true. But the impression he's left on many people is that he's alienating certain blocks of voters not known to be straight, white males. He made the food stamp remarks and instead of clearing his name on the matter when moderator Juan Williams asked him about it in a debate, he instead attacked the question. With his past marriage problems and not standing by his wives' side during illness, even going so far as to allegedly tell his second wife he wanted an open marriage, he was asked about this via John King in another debate. Once again, instead of answering the question and clearing his name, he attacked the question and the moderator whom asked it. He attacked moderator Brian Williams for asking the audience to be quiet and not interrupt the speakers. He's offended Latinos and gays in the not-too-distant past. Whether or not he's racist, sexist or homophobic is kind of besides the point. The fact is that, generally speaking, African-Americans, Latinos, women and gays don't think very highly of him and unless he pulled off a miracle, it'd be very difficult for him to earn any of these groups' support before the election in order to make it a competitive race."
The bartender just spoke out saying, "He's not racist. He's not. He's not. He's not."
I had to then explain things a bit more slowly and said, "I'm not saying he's racist. I doubt that he is. But through his commentary, his reactions, his history, there aren't many 'races' outside of Caucasians who are very happy with him. It's difficult to win a general election with just the straight, white male vote."
He then moved onto Mitt Romney and asked, "Why are people not happy with his tax returns?"
I said, "Because these people feel like they're being cheated in some way, that a man who raked in $47 million paid 13.9% in taxes. He's currently unemployed, yet makes more money in a day (approximately $57,000) than most in this country make in a year. Many don't feel like he can relate to them."
He then lost his cool with that as well, taking it personally, as if I were voicing my opinion. I had to explain (as did his wife), "I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with these notions. You asked why 'people' weren't too pleased with his tax returns and based on conversations I've had and articles I've read, the people who aren't happy with the release of his tax returns, have more times than not stated what I just laid before you."
He then talked about taxes and "The Buffett Rule," which would raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans from 35% to 39.6%, where the taxes were under the Clinton Administration. He complained about this, said it wasn't fair to the rich, etc.
Knowing he is a big fan of Ronald Reagan, I said, "Okay. It's debatable whether the tax hike from 35% to 39.6% is 'fair' to the rich, but you do realize that even at 39.6%, that tax rate pales in comparison to other such rates throughout our history, right? Under Ronald Reagan, the average federal income tax for the top bracket was at approximately 50%."
He snapped, "That's bulls**t."
I kind of laughed (Oddly enough, I had JUST researched this a few days prior) and said, "Okay, look it up."
He snapped again, gave me his phone and said, "You look it up."
I did. I googled "Reagan 50% taxes" and found 31,700,000 results. I clicked on the very top one, which illustrated what I just said, and gave him the phone.
He responded with, "This isn't true and you know it."
I said, "Fine. Back out of that and click on the next link."
He declined. His wife scrolled through the google results and said, "It says here 50%. It says here it decreased from 70% to 50%."
He then tried to focus on that.
I said, "I never said taxes didn't decrease in his term. However, if you're going to complain about Obama creating class warfare and being a promoter of socialism by raising federal income taxes on the top 2% to 39.6%, how is that causing class warfare and socialism and Reagan's tax rate of 50% is perfectly okay?"
He then tried diverting attention away from that lack of consistency on his part and said, "So, you're for the tax hike."
I said, "In the interest of the deficit and the fact that a recent poll indicated that 68% of these very individuals who would see their taxes increased support that increase, I think it's in the best interest of our country to do this, yes."
He said, "The deficit has nothing to do with it..."
I responded with, "It doesn't?"
He came back with, "No. You're just a socialist."
Then, that was where I drew the line. I kind of chuckled to myself and said, "Yeah, I think I'm going to go."
He sent two e-mails not long afterward, with half-hearted apologies. His wife sent a more sincere apology via text on her husband's behalf. He then sent another half-hearted apology yesterday, which I will write a separate blog about shortly.
This is why I find it difficult to discuss politics with most people, because it seems that a majority of times, it's just talking points. Facts don't matter. I wasn't saying that Ronald Reagan was a bad president. In any case, that would have simply been an opinion. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of his statements and beliefs. With regard to the proposed tax hike, that was factual. The proposed tax hike would jump from 35%, where it is presently, to 39.6% on the wealthiest of Americans. This would be the same rate it was at during the Clinton years. For 7 of his 8 years as president, federal income taxes on the wealthy were higher under Ronald Reagan than they are today and if the tax hike goes through, 6 of his 8 years would have been significantly higher in terms of those very taxes, with one year being remarkably close (38.5% compared to 39.6%) and on average, was at approximately 50%. That isn't an opinion. Those numbers can be used to support opinions or deny others' opinions, but they by themselves are facts. I likely struck a nerve, as I made him look rather foolish and with regard to his favorite president of all-time. In any case, the numbers I presented weren't opinions; they were fact. I have a hunch he doesn't receive that very frequently. Well, if he's insistent on discussing politics with me, he better get used to that, because I don't form strong opinions until I have ample evidence to support them and even for those opinions I'm not entirely certain about, I have ample evidence to either support or deny others' opinions. This is why people have told me time and again that they don't want to debate me in politics, because unlike most people, I do my research and plenty of it. I don't resort to slogans and talking points. I don't tell people what they want to hear. I present solid evidence to either make the other(s) think a bit about what they're saying or to perhaps make a strong case for an opinion I have in an attempt to persuade them on the matter at hand. In any case, it was like debating with a bully high schooler, who obviously didn't do their homework. Presented with evidence? Deny that evidence. Divert attention away from that evidence and then call the other person a name. Yup, bully high schooler indeed. The Nerd vs. The Jock. Gotta love it... ::rolls eyes::
This was again the case on Friday night. He talked about the Republican field and started with Newt Gingrich. I gave my opinion that I felt (and polls backed me up on this) that he was the less electable of the two, between he and Mitt Romney. I then did as I tend to do with him and said, "I'm not saying this to be true. But the impression he's left on many people is that he's alienating certain blocks of voters not known to be straight, white males. He made the food stamp remarks and instead of clearing his name on the matter when moderator Juan Williams asked him about it in a debate, he instead attacked the question. With his past marriage problems and not standing by his wives' side during illness, even going so far as to allegedly tell his second wife he wanted an open marriage, he was asked about this via John King in another debate. Once again, instead of answering the question and clearing his name, he attacked the question and the moderator whom asked it. He attacked moderator Brian Williams for asking the audience to be quiet and not interrupt the speakers. He's offended Latinos and gays in the not-too-distant past. Whether or not he's racist, sexist or homophobic is kind of besides the point. The fact is that, generally speaking, African-Americans, Latinos, women and gays don't think very highly of him and unless he pulled off a miracle, it'd be very difficult for him to earn any of these groups' support before the election in order to make it a competitive race."
The bartender just spoke out saying, "He's not racist. He's not. He's not. He's not."
I had to then explain things a bit more slowly and said, "I'm not saying he's racist. I doubt that he is. But through his commentary, his reactions, his history, there aren't many 'races' outside of Caucasians who are very happy with him. It's difficult to win a general election with just the straight, white male vote."
He then moved onto Mitt Romney and asked, "Why are people not happy with his tax returns?"
I said, "Because these people feel like they're being cheated in some way, that a man who raked in $47 million paid 13.9% in taxes. He's currently unemployed, yet makes more money in a day (approximately $57,000) than most in this country make in a year. Many don't feel like he can relate to them."
He then lost his cool with that as well, taking it personally, as if I were voicing my opinion. I had to explain (as did his wife), "I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with these notions. You asked why 'people' weren't too pleased with his tax returns and based on conversations I've had and articles I've read, the people who aren't happy with the release of his tax returns, have more times than not stated what I just laid before you."
He then talked about taxes and "The Buffett Rule," which would raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans from 35% to 39.6%, where the taxes were under the Clinton Administration. He complained about this, said it wasn't fair to the rich, etc.
Knowing he is a big fan of Ronald Reagan, I said, "Okay. It's debatable whether the tax hike from 35% to 39.6% is 'fair' to the rich, but you do realize that even at 39.6%, that tax rate pales in comparison to other such rates throughout our history, right? Under Ronald Reagan, the average federal income tax for the top bracket was at approximately 50%."
He snapped, "That's bulls**t."
I kind of laughed (Oddly enough, I had JUST researched this a few days prior) and said, "Okay, look it up."
He snapped again, gave me his phone and said, "You look it up."
I did. I googled "Reagan 50% taxes" and found 31,700,000 results. I clicked on the very top one, which illustrated what I just said, and gave him the phone.
He responded with, "This isn't true and you know it."
I said, "Fine. Back out of that and click on the next link."
He declined. His wife scrolled through the google results and said, "It says here 50%. It says here it decreased from 70% to 50%."
He then tried to focus on that.
I said, "I never said taxes didn't decrease in his term. However, if you're going to complain about Obama creating class warfare and being a promoter of socialism by raising federal income taxes on the top 2% to 39.6%, how is that causing class warfare and socialism and Reagan's tax rate of 50% is perfectly okay?"
He then tried diverting attention away from that lack of consistency on his part and said, "So, you're for the tax hike."
I said, "In the interest of the deficit and the fact that a recent poll indicated that 68% of these very individuals who would see their taxes increased support that increase, I think it's in the best interest of our country to do this, yes."
He said, "The deficit has nothing to do with it..."
I responded with, "It doesn't?"
He came back with, "No. You're just a socialist."
Then, that was where I drew the line. I kind of chuckled to myself and said, "Yeah, I think I'm going to go."
He sent two e-mails not long afterward, with half-hearted apologies. His wife sent a more sincere apology via text on her husband's behalf. He then sent another half-hearted apology yesterday, which I will write a separate blog about shortly.
This is why I find it difficult to discuss politics with most people, because it seems that a majority of times, it's just talking points. Facts don't matter. I wasn't saying that Ronald Reagan was a bad president. In any case, that would have simply been an opinion. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of his statements and beliefs. With regard to the proposed tax hike, that was factual. The proposed tax hike would jump from 35%, where it is presently, to 39.6% on the wealthiest of Americans. This would be the same rate it was at during the Clinton years. For 7 of his 8 years as president, federal income taxes on the wealthy were higher under Ronald Reagan than they are today and if the tax hike goes through, 6 of his 8 years would have been significantly higher in terms of those very taxes, with one year being remarkably close (38.5% compared to 39.6%) and on average, was at approximately 50%. That isn't an opinion. Those numbers can be used to support opinions or deny others' opinions, but they by themselves are facts. I likely struck a nerve, as I made him look rather foolish and with regard to his favorite president of all-time. In any case, the numbers I presented weren't opinions; they were fact. I have a hunch he doesn't receive that very frequently. Well, if he's insistent on discussing politics with me, he better get used to that, because I don't form strong opinions until I have ample evidence to support them and even for those opinions I'm not entirely certain about, I have ample evidence to either support or deny others' opinions. This is why people have told me time and again that they don't want to debate me in politics, because unlike most people, I do my research and plenty of it. I don't resort to slogans and talking points. I don't tell people what they want to hear. I present solid evidence to either make the other(s) think a bit about what they're saying or to perhaps make a strong case for an opinion I have in an attempt to persuade them on the matter at hand. In any case, it was like debating with a bully high schooler, who obviously didn't do their homework. Presented with evidence? Deny that evidence. Divert attention away from that evidence and then call the other person a name. Yup, bully high schooler indeed. The Nerd vs. The Jock. Gotta love it... ::rolls eyes::
Comments
Post a Comment