The only reason Biden winning would be bad for STONKS is if the market perceived a reduced chance of tax cuts. However, they need to flip the House to get the tax cuts. Since the chance of that is low, a clear Biden win doesn’t hurt anything.
Or we could push five variants of each on facebook and let the algorithm pick which one we serve to who. I’m not kidding, this is actually what we should do on a technical level.
9 Likes
It can be all but the first one. People just think he’s smart for paying little in taxes. But he can be a dumb broke crook who owes a lot of money to the mob.
2 Likes
At this point a Biden win should be “priced in.” What’s not priced in is electoral chaos, massive civil unrest, violence in the streets, and societal breakdown. The better Biden does, the less likely that happens.
1 Like
Yes, sorry, I should have prefaced my comment with the caveat that I have no real understanding of the market to back up my claim. And yet, I still hold onto it strongly, because I’m an American first.
(But thanks for the replies.)
1 Like
Yes, I’m seeing that defense coming from his base. I don’t know if it resonates the same with the people you need to reach. Millions and millions in income, and $750 paid in taxes? I thought “rich people should pay more” polls well.
That’s why I’m saying you have to focus group and poll on it and figure out which is the best message. I honestly think it could be the first one - paying $750 when you say you’re a billionaire doesn’t sit right with most level-headed thinkers.
Even many people who think this don’t expect rich people to pay more voluntarily. They expect the tax code to change.
To my earlier point, LOL this. Only 18 things I need to take from this story??
I think the message to pound home is the $750. Simplicity wins.
Personally, I was mildly surprised by the amount of blatant tax fraud, but that shit is just too complicated to use in a campaign.
embarrassed maybe but ashamed I’m not sure.
1 Like
Yes you’re right. That’s what I meant.
I think this is probably be the best one. Most of your other ideas have pretty effective counters:
“Who wrote those tax laws, Joe? You did. Of course I payed as little as possible, I’m a businessman.”
“More Russiagate conspiracy nonsense, Joe?”
“Then why did the Obama administration give me a 100 million dollar refund, Joe?”
This one is actually the first part of “now we know why the country is run so poorly” attack. The only thing that Trump can say is that Joe has no idea how any of his businesses work and a guy who spent fifty years in the DC swamp doesn’t understand how Real Americans (lol) run Real Businesses (lol). I’m not sure if it will be effective and frankly other lines of attack that actually matter to people, like the economy or Trump’s mishandling of the Covid crisis, seem to be better bets than this stuff.
Good point. The real story here is likely the massive tax fraud. But as Riverman said, that gets too complicated. But…who cares…just say it. Say he’s a major tax fraud. Say he committed crimes. If asked to explain, just say “look at the story…it’s all there.”
4 Likes
I guess New York can’t actually indict while he’s in office, but NY Atty General stating that there’s a lot of fraud and an indictment is awaiting citizen Trump would make a simple enough headline.
1 Like
There is no rule that says NY can’t indict a sitting president. As a practical matter once the president is indicted I’m not sure what would actually happen next.
I’m guessing Barr would strongly disagree.
1 Like
That seems like a bad idea, not having an easily digested backup for the claim plays right into their Fake News narrative.
There is nothing Barr could do
Bring on the indictments then. But then, NY State has had his tax returns all along and I guess they didn’t think there was anything indictable so far.