2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I had forgotten just how entertaining the 2016 thread was on Election Night.

heelie MIA and fancam drunk/raging.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Ugh, now I have to do more typing, lol.

Funding accounting majors will help to fill a need, sure. But it's not as if demand for accounting will increase. Increasing the supply will bring down wages of existing accountants. The total amount of money spent on accounting will go down. That lower amount will then be split between more accountants.

More accountants also equals less painters. So their wages go up. Because accountants have less disposable income and painters still have little to no disposable income (as if they'd make enough to change that level), disposable income overall goes nowhere (at best).


Perhaps more importantly, we are already in a place where anyone who wants an accounting degree can get one. Funding isn't the barrier to supplying more accountants.

Lastly, I will reiterate that irresponsible behavior will still occur, causing government to redistribute wealth as a compensation just the same as before.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Yes if the market becomes too crowded that is true. The opposite can be said if there is a deficiency though. People will be overpaying for jobs because of the lack of suppliers. That's why I think if the government was to fund education it needs to evaluate WHERE it funds its resources. These socialist plans are dumb because they think it's worth while to get useless degrees. The government's job if it was to get involved is it needs to make a competitive market where it can employ the most workers as possible. I actually don't have a problem with the government saying, if you want to use our funding, these are your choices.

If you believe that there is no inefficiencies in the labor market then you shouldn't believe in wealth distribution since you believe the market is at its maximal efficiency. As far as I'm concerned, there was still a lack of supply of labor for particular jobs precovid even being at the lowest unemployment ever.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Yes if the market becomes too crowded that is true. The opposite can be said if there is a deficiency though. People will be overpaying for jobs because of the lack of suppliers. That's why I think if the government was to fund education it needs to evaluate WHERE it funds its resources. These socialist plans are dumb because they think it's worth while to get useless degrees. The government's job if it was to get involved is it needs to make a competitive market where it can employ the most workers as possible. I actually don't have a problem with the government saying, if you want to use our funding, these are your choices.

Oddly enough, I absolutely agree with this. I do so for different reasons than you though.

I do think funding, especially targeted funding as you propose, is a pretty good idea. I do not, however feel that way because I think it will do much in terms of the competitive abilities of America in the world economy.

I also don't have as much faith in the American population as you seem to have. There will still be bums and drug addicts. And the cream will still rise to the top, just as before.

I would like to go on a bit of a tangent and point out the hippocracy of many of the righties on this topic. I don't see any of them arguing against free education as they were doing a week or two ago. I also don't see them arguing that this is similar to what Biden wants and pretty much for the same reasons.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Yes if the market becomes too crowded that is true. The opposite can be said if there is a deficiency though. People will be overpaying for jobs because of the lack of suppliers. That's why I think if the government was to fund education it needs to evaluate WHERE it funds its resources. These socialist plans are dumb because they think it's worth while to get useless degrees. The government's job if it was to get involved is it needs to make a competitive market where it can employ the most workers as possible. I actually don't have a problem with the government saying, if you want to use our funding, these are your choices.

If you believe that there is no inefficiencies in the labor market then you shouldn't believe in wealth distribution since you believe the market is at its maximal efficiency. As far as I'm concerned, there was still a lack of supply of labor for particular jobs precovid even being at the lowest unemployment ever.

As to the second part, added after I responded....

I recognize inefficiency in our labor market. It's pretty blatant at times, lol. I resist the notion of government interference in it though. I only advocate for such things in times of crisis.

That being said, I am still in favor (for the most part) of targeted funding. Again, I don't want the government to drive the labor market and I also don't see it having a huge effect in the world market, but I feel investing in education should over time pay for itself through increased tax revenues.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

I had forgotten just how entertaining the 2016 thread was on Election Night.

Thank you for this. I spent 10 minutes go through it myself.

It was a heavy caps lock night for me. My son was born two days later ... goes down as the greatest week of all time.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Oddly enough, I absolutely agree with this. I do so for different reasons than you though.

I do think funding, especially targeted funding as you propose, is a pretty good idea. I do not, however feel that way because I think it will do much in terms of the competitive abilities of America in the world economy.

I also don't have as much faith in the American population as you seem to have. There will still be bums and drug addicts. And the cream will still rise to the top, just as before.

I would like to go on a bit of a tangent and point out the hippocracy of many of the righties on this topic. I don't see any of them arguing against free education as they were doing a week or two ago. I also don't see them arguing that this is similar to what Biden wants and pretty much for the same reasons.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

The first paragraph you're going to have to explain because automatically when more players joins creates more competition.

I don't have as much faith as you think. Druggies will not make it through the training (may that be college or trade school). It's an easy way to wade through the garbage. If they were given an opportunity and choose drugs or be a bum instead, I wouldn't give them benefits. It really solves the benefits problem as a whole. Actually this was the real problem I've been trying to solve. To me this is the best way to vet through them.

I also never said free education but I'll admit I don't know how this should be funded. I actually have read into colleges taking a certain percentage of your salary over X amount of years so you don't have to deal with debt. I actually think this will make less people scared about having to pay back too much debt.

The difference between me and liberals is that a lot of liberals think it's okay to go into majors that aren't demanded. To me that's a waste. I wouldn't fund them. Only majors where the government felt their was a deficiency of supply.

And I don't think the right view it hypocritical because they know I don't follow the party to a Tee. If it's not apparent, I'm not a Trumper. I'd rather look at where I think we can make the labor force more efficient. Some think it's getting 30 cent jobs back overseas. I differ from that. Where be both agree is that this should reduce programs if more people are employed. I just don't think manufacturing provides a livable wage while there are other jobs in demand that do.

I don't believe in solving the inefficiency in our system with the wealthy's money like socialist do. I figure that giving the people the opportunity to make themselves actually worth something in the labor market means we don't need the wealthy's money to close that gap. They should be able to create value with the skills they are provided and the rest is up to them.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Maine has four electoral votes, not one, and it’s not a winner-take-all state. A split in votes could make the difference in a tight race.

Ouch, thanks for the education.


growing up, Maine always had two electoral votes, then I thought it was "demoted" to 1 in the 2000 elections.

Now it's up to 4 and indeed, they can be split.


My prediction: biden and trump split the state 2-2.

[Jgil316]

Based purely on numbers

My gut tells me a strong Biden win in a week. I have already said Biden gets 330+ EC points and I maintain that today.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Based purely on numbers

My gut tells me a strong Biden win in a week. I have already said Biden gets 330+ EC points and I maintain that today.

As I have mentioned to others; the EC's will come in buckets.

Florida / Georgia / NC / Arizona is a bucket.
Iowa / Texas / Ohio is a bucket.
Wisconsin / PA / Michigan is a bucket.
Nevada / Minnesota / New Hampshire is a bucket.

Trump needs to win buckets #1, #2, and either #3/#4 to win election. There is no way to peel off a state like Florida in this election unless the votes are also going your way in NC and Georgia etc. etc.

Biden may very well have 350+ if he wins that first bucket (but I don't think he will).

[discostu]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Headed there now, I need a good laugh.

edit: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...=2016+politics
starts to get fun at about page 515...

I absolutely love every single one of my 16 posts in that thread.

So much in fact, I almost went full NeedChapmans and only quoted myself to show one off.

[pac213up]

A week away from the election. Trump polling essentially the same as he was in 2016. Biden polling +6 ahead of Clinton. Not really surprising with Biden making a State like GA competitive. It will be a wild ride to see how it all translates across the various States. Polling may never recover if it misses by even more than it did 4 years ago. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...kins-7225.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tein-5952.html

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by mike1498

The first paragraph you're going to have to explain because automatically when more players joins creates more competition.

I don't have as much faith as you think. Druggies will not make it through the training (may that be college or trade school). It's an easy way to wade through the garbage. If they were given an opportunity and choose drugs or be a bum instead, I wouldn't give them benefits. It really solves the benefits problem as a whole. Actually this was the real problem I've been trying to solve. To me this is the best way to vet through them.

I also never said free education but I'll admit I don't know how this should be funded. I actually have read into colleges taking a certain percentage of your salary over X amount of years so you don't have to deal with debt. I actually think this will make less people scared about having to pay back too much debt.

The difference between me and liberals is that a lot of liberals think it's okay to go into majors that aren't demanded. To me that's a waste. I wouldn't fund them. Only majors where the government felt their was a deficiency of supply.

And I don't think the right view it hypocritical because they know I don't follow the party to a Tee. If it's not apparent, I'm not a Trumper. I'd rather look at where I think we can make the labor force more efficient. Some think it's getting 30 cent jobs back overseas. I differ from that. Where be both agree is that this should reduce programs if more people are employed. I just don't think manufacturing provides a livable wage while there are other jobs in demand that do.

As to the first paragraph, yes. More competition would be created in the American skilled labor force. I don't see that necessarily as a plus in terms of our place in the world. It's certainly not a negative, but a net neutral in my mind. It's a "six of one, half dozen of the other" type thing.

Lol at the comment about liberals. Fine Arts and Underwater Basket Weaving make excellent careers!

As for sourcing the funding, I think it's okay if it's government funded. Giving dominion over schools is kind of like letting the fox into the hen house. Again, I see the government getting it all back down the road in tax revenue (not necessarily income tax, but corporate tax code would have much more flexibility if skilled labor was cheaper). Letting schools take a cut is similar to the government taking its cut. As inefficient as govt is, the bias schools bring is just too much to put them in charge.

The hippocracy I see isn't based on the merit of the discussion. I was thinking that if I had said exactly what you said, they'd be all over me right now, haha.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

As I have mentioned to others; the EC's will come in buckets.

Florida / Georgia / NC / Arizona is a bucket.
Iowa / Texas / Ohio is a bucket.
Wisconsin / PA / Michigan is a bucket.
Nevada / Minnesota / New Hampshire is a bucket.

Trump needs to win buckets #1, #2, and either #3/#4 to win election. There is no way to peel off a state like Florida in this election unless the votes are also going your way in NC and Georgia etc. etc.

Biden may very well have 350+ if he wins that first bucket (but I don't think he will).

Agreed up there to the buckets.

Crunching numbers here: 2016 had 136 million votes counted and Trump won 46.1% of those.

This was the "silent" Trump supporters who came out and he won.

Now, in 2020 the projection is 160-165 million votes to be counted. An increase of 24-30 million more votes.
I am just not seeing Trump picking up any more than 46% again this round and with the larger denominator, he would have to get 11-13 million MORE people to vote for him this time that did not vote in 2016 - just to stay at that 46%.

Obviously, this is all dependent upon the total votes counted.

Right now, early vote counts are 20 million ahead of the total for 2016

It will be interesting to see the numbers as they come in .

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

As to the first paragraph, yes. More competition would be created in the American skilled labor force. I don't see that necessarily as a plus in terms of our place in the world. It's certainly not a negative, but a net neutral in my mind. It's a "six of one, half dozen of the other" type thing.

Lol at the comment about liberals. Fine Arts and Underwater Basket Weaving make excellent careers!

As for sourcing the funding, I think it's okay if it's government funded. Giving dominion over schools is kind of like letting the fox into the hen house. Again, I see the government getting it all back down the road in tax revenue (not necessarily income tax, but corporate tax code would have much more flexibility if skilled labor was cheaper). Letting schools take a cut is similar to the government taking its cut. As inefficient as govt is, the bias schools bring is just too much to put them in charge.

The hippocracy I see isn't based on the merit of the discussion. I was thinking that if I had said exactly what you said, they'd be all over me right now, haha.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

I don't think you understand that first part. You're okay if Amazon was allowed too buy out every company if it chose to? If we had only one accountant or one law firm they could charge whatever they want. Why wouldn't you want competition?

While the last part may be true, usually socialist feel everything is needed. It's why they get shut down quickly. If socialist were like, we think there is an inefficiency in the labor market and we want to fix it by offering individuals that are willing to have X amount taken out of their paycheck for their first couple years on the job in order to be able to go to school debt free, we'll fund it. They aren't saying that though. They are saying we need to give everyone the house, not the tools to build the house.

I'm willing to bet they would be perceived a lot better if they said it the way I did. The truth is they rather fund the bums because that's a chunk of their votes.

I'm saying the exact opposite. I want to make it so people who want to work can. People who choose to ignore the opportunity won't have access to social programs. Again this doesn't have to be college. It just needs to be a job where there's an inefficiency.

[lietuvalabas]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Headed there now, I need a good laugh.

edit: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...=2016+politics
starts to get fun at about page 515...

i just came across this gem in there, how many of them moved to canada?

Neve Campbell
Cher (says she’ll move to the planet Jupiter)
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Miley Cyrus
Barry Diller
Lena Dunham
Whoopi Goldberg
Eddie Griffin
Chelsea Handler
Omari Hardwick
Katie Hopkins
Samuel L. Jackson
Jennifer Lawrence (says the world would end if Trump is elected)
Spike Lee
George Lopez
Natasha Lyone
Rachel Maddow
Rosie O’Donnell
Susan Sarandon
Choë Sevigny
Al Sharpton
Amy Schumer
Jon Stewart (says he’ll move to another planet)
Barbra Streisand (not again!)
Raven Symone


Cranston had my respect from malcom in the middle
and Eddie griffin was decent in deuce biaglo.

The rest are irrelevant to me, isnt omari the chick from Minnesota from "the squad" who married her brother? I probably havent heard of 1/3 of them...how many others are "moving to canada" this year if trump wins? Will Enes Kanter ask China if they need another player and deface our country's flag again? i am waiting with Zen like patience..

[oshmeehan]

Originally Posted by steelcityguy

Amazing two minutes is an understatement. This is pure comedy gold. But sad as well, because we all know Biden isn't all there and his family should be ashamed for allowing this at all. But we all know that if he wins, Kamalama Ding Dong will end up as POTUS in record time. You think Trump is bad, wait till this crazy Indian-American now suddenly turned African-American gets into office.

Based on your "logic", 99.9% of the black population in the US should not identify as African-American then.

Her saying she is an Indian-American, African-American, or Asian-American are all accurate

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Agreed up there to the buckets.

Crunching numbers here: 2016 had 136 million votes counted and Trump won 46.1% of those.

This was the "silent" Trump supporters who came out and he won.

Now, in 2020 the projection is 160-165 million votes to be counted. An increase of 24-30 million more votes.
I am just not seeing Trump picking up any more than 46% again this round and with the larger denominator, he would have to get 11-13 million MORE people to vote for him this time that did not vote in 2016 - just to stay at that 46%.

Obviously, this is all dependent upon the total votes counted.

Right now, early vote counts are 20 million ahead of the total for 2016

It will be interesting to see the numbers as they come in .

Everything in my brain says Trump will lose. Everything. I've lived my entire life based on math and stats and the polls all say the same thing; Trump will lose. It's hard to rewire up there to say "no dummy, don't you remember what happened four years ago".

We'll see. For me it boils down simply. In the state of Florida 9.6 million people voted in '16. And of that vote, Republicans turned out 65,000 more voters than Democrats (even though Dems had 400,000 more registered voters in the state). I'm watching daily to see if Trump can do it again. This time, Dems have only a 140,000 advantage in registered voters but Trump will need to turn out at LEAST 125,000 more Red voters than Blue. Because Florida will have 11 million voting this time.

7:01 pm ET, I call Florida for somebody. And if that's Joe; no need to stick around for the rest of it. If it's Trump ... we're gonna have some election night FUN!

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by oshmeehan

Based on your "logic", 99.9% of the black population in the US should not identify as African-American then.

Her saying she is an Indian-American, African-American, or Asian-American are all accurate

And she will use whichever one is convenient at the time.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by oshmeehan

Based on your "logic", 99.9% of the black population in the US should not identify as African-American then.

Her saying she is an Indian-American, African-American, or Asian-American are all accurate

I don't know what community you belong to, but I'll be honest, I've overheard some African American's at my work say they don't think she's truly African American.

For what it's worth, that's only one account but I'm curious to see how many of "African Americans" would say they identify with kamala.

[lietuvalabas]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I don't know what community you belong to, but I'll be honest, I've overheard some African American's at my work say they don't think she's truly African American.

For what it's worth, that's only one account but I'm curious to see how many of "African Americans" would say they identify with kamala.

more or less than rachel dolezal

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

And she will use whichever one is convenient at the time.

The saddest part is, it shouldn't freaking matter.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I don't think you understand that first part. You're okay if Amazon was allowed too buy out every company if it chose to? If we had only one accountant or one law firm they could charge whatever they want. Why wouldn't you want competition?



While the last part may be true, usually socialist feel everything is needed. It's why they get shut down quickly. If socialist were like, we think there is an inefficiency in the labor market and we want to fix it by offering individuals that are willing to have X amount taken out of their paycheck for their first couple years on the job in order to be able to go to school debt free, we'll fund it. They aren't saying that though. They are saying we need to give everyone the house, not the tools to build the house.



I'm willing to bet they would be perceived a lot better if they said it the way I did. The truth is they rather fund the bums because that's a chunk of their votes.



I'm saying the exact opposite. I want to make it so people who want to work can. People who choose to ignore the opportunity won't have access to social programs. Again this doesn't have to be college. It just needs to be a job where there's an inefficiency.

That was a textbook response, lol. Still, it's not without merit.

Who said no competition? I didn't even imply it, I don't think. Competition is good. I'm not sure what you were getting at. We do not have one accountant. We have, I'd guess, several hundred thousand of them. More competition or less competition does not mean no competition.

About the socialist part, yeah. I think though, that people will see it how they see it. Some see a hammer and some see a house. Some think American citizenship by itself is the hammer.

I happen to think education is overrated, personally. I know that's going to be met with negativity here, but let me explain. I'm not saying education is bad. I most certainly encourage everyone to go that route. But....

Maybe the biggest inefficiency in our labor market is the time we spend preparing to work. Maybe 16 or 20 years is simply excessive. Maybe there is no need to require certain classes (like, half of them lol). Maybe longer working careers is the way to go. Maybe it doesn't take four years to learn accounting. Maybe a European history requirement is inefficient.

Ever wonder why 90% of degrees take the same number of credits to earn? Is it reasonable to assume that interior design and accounting would each take the exact amount of effort to learn?

I have two people in my life that dropped out of high school and became painters. By their mid-twenties, both were making more money than a recent college grad and neither had debt. Now, near 50, my brother made over 200k last year as a painter, running a 6 man crew for a company. The other, a friend, started his own painting company fifteen years ago and now clears high six figures (sometimes low seven).

My dumb ass got a degree in business admin. I never once earned more with it than my brother earned painting. I even had a company or two of my own along the way, and still he beats me every year. Why?

He busts his tail. Painting sucks. It's hot, sweaty, brutal work in the summer and even worse in the winter. Even if he's working indoors, he's always dirty. It just is a sucky job and he works hard at it anyway.

Merica

Getting too long lol. Sorry.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Everything in my brain says Trump will lose. Everything. I've lived my entire life based on math and stats and the polls all say the same thing; Trump will lose. It's hard to rewire up there to say "no dummy, don't you remember what happened four years ago".

We'll see. For me it boils down simply. In the state of Florida 9.6 million people voted in '16. And of that vote, Republicans turned out 65,000 more voters than Democrats (even though Dems had 400,000 more registered voters in the state). I'm watching daily to see if Trump can do it again. This time, Dems have only a 140,000 advantage in registered voters but Trump will need to turn out at LEAST 125,000 more Red voters than Blue. Because Florida will have 11 million voting this time.

7:01 pm ET, I call Florida for somebody. And if that's Joe; no need to stick around for the rest of it. If it's Trump ... we're gonna have some election night FUN!

I am a numbers guy as well - I am not looking at polls (not because of 2016) because they are skewed by the small population they pull from (typically it is 1100-1300 likely voters)

I just went to the national numbers and ran some scenario's based on total counted votes (allowing for discarded votes).
I just do not see him picking up 12 million votes above what he had in 2016. With that said - I also can not see any way Trump hits 270+ with less than 75 million votes cast for him.
Again, just my $0.02 worth based on a 10,000 foot level.

[rcmb3220]

I am voting on Election Day in person but I was surprised to learn you can change your vote in Michigan. It’s a bit of a hassle though. Not sure if that’s the norm in other states. I thought there was no way in hell you could change your vote.

[AwesomeBrian]

Originally Posted by lietuvalabas

i just came across this gem in there, how many of them moved to canada?

Neve Campbell
Cher (says she’ll move to the planet Jupiter)
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Miley Cyrus
Barry Diller
Lena Dunham
Whoopi Goldberg
Eddie Griffin
Chelsea Handler
Omari Hardwick
Katie Hopkins
Samuel L. Jackson
Jennifer Lawrence (says the world would end if Trump is elected)
Spike Lee
George Lopez
Natasha Lyone
Rachel Maddow
Rosie O’Donnell
Susan Sarandon
Choë Sevigny
Al Sharpton
Amy Schumer
Jon Stewart (says he’ll move to another planet)
Barbra Streisand (not again!)
Raven Symone


Cranston had my respect from malcom in the middle
and Eddie griffin was decent in deuce biaglo.

The rest are irrelevant to me, isnt omari the chick from Minnesota from "the squad" who married her brother? I probably havent heard of 1/3 of them...how many others are "moving to canada" this year if trump wins? Will Enes Kanter ask China if they need another player and deface our country's flag again? i am waiting with Zen like patience..

Who cares?