|
On November 04 2020 13:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:22 Starlightsun wrote:On November 04 2020 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 12:55 Zambrah wrote:
Democrats should disband their party in shame if they can’t manage to beat Donald Trump Seriously. At minimum the people that led the last 8 years have to get out of the damn way and let progressives lose instead (assuming they'll lose like centrists insist). I think a lot of us are going to be more inclined to the ideas you guys advocate for GH and Zambrah. Just the fact that the race is competitive is already a huge loss. The whole system just looks broken and rotten to the core. A lot of people like the ideas of the progressives, but the Democratic party has shown they would rather lose again and again than let the progressives take the lead in the party.
Yeah I feel like most of the conclusions people are drawing could have been drawn 4 years ago, the Democrats just did fuck all to act on any of them.
|
United States10530 Posts
Some big news if Biden has indeed won Arizona. Breathes a bit of life back into their election chances.
|
I don't think you understand the hatred for the electoral college. It's not the "republicanism", it's that we already have an entire other branch devoted to republicanism that more than takes care of it (Senate by intent, House by reapportionment acts capping its size at way too small).
There are other ways to do this that are better than our current method, without going straight to direct election of the president. It's clearly a failed experiment. Give me a prime minister or something instead.
|
United States44205 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:25 Laurens wrote:
Iowa just flipped red with 73% counted.
Pretty sure Trump has it tbh, going back to bed, we'll see what I wake up to!
Not on NBC or NYT trackers.
|
On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide.
can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win?
i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer
|
Fox is bullshitting tonight. They had Biden as sure win in NC earlier
|
On November 04 2020 13:23 Shingi11 wrote:
Also Georgia is not out yet ether. A lot blue vote still out there like the Atlanta area. We could still some some states flip back. Voting does not just stop today as much as trump wants it to.
I desperately want Biden to win to restore some semblance of normalcy to relations with the USA, but I think Georgia is a write-off. There's far too much GOP fucker to win in that state with Kemp at the helm.
|
On November 04 2020 13:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:13 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:59 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:56 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:52 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:48 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:45 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:42 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:37 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:35 Monochromatic wrote:
[quote]
I've been struggling with valuations since '08. You don't need to tell me the damage QE has done to the rational stock market. However, at the end of the day, it's something we have to live with, and take advantage of. The stock market going up has put money in my, as well as millions of other Americans, pocket. But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim? No. I'm saying that despite lower GDP, we've managed to match China's market growth, and that the economy has been amazing - two separate thoughts. A large part of this (both the valuations and the economy) was the corporate tax cut, which was 100% Trump. US unemployment hit the lowest level for 50 years. Removing regulations has also supercharged the economy. To your point about fake buybacks and low rates, that's the QE. To the massive growth in SMEs, I award that to Trump's policies. If the growth was due to the tax cut then why did it start 8 years before the tax cut? That's a little silly. Sure, he inherited a growing economy. His policies turned it into a record-breaking one. But he didn't. Look at the SP500 growth by year from 2009 to 2020. The numbers don't support your claim. 2009 - 23% 2010 - 13% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 13% 2013 - 30% 2014 - 11% 2015 - (1%) 2016 - 10% 2017 (Trump's first year) - 19% 2018 - (6%) 2019 (year in which the tax cuts took effect, funded by huge deficit spending) 29% 2020 4% Trump performed less well, on average, than Obama. Which record do you think Trump broke on growth in valuations? He's in the bottom half of Presidents. He constantly tweets about it but the numbers simply don't support any conclusion but that the man is a liar. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey 17 was great, 18 ended on a major, but very short downturn, 19 was good, and 2020 is a pandemic. I think that's a quite good track record. Sorry, is the claim now that Trump has performed at a solid B average? Two posts ago it was that it was recordbreaking. He's 3rd out of the last 4 presidents in growth in market valuations and the guy he beat literally presided over the collapse of global capitalism. You keep shifting the goalposts. You started with Trump growing the economy at an unprecedented pace. You then changed that to Trump growing the valuation of major companies at an unprecedented pace while keeping the economy growing slowly. Now you're arguing that Trump grew the valuation of major companies at a below average rate but that you'd still give him a passing grade. Please argue your original claim, that Trump delivered record breaking growth. My original claim is that Trump grew the stock market on pace with China's, despite lower GDP growth, and that we have had an amazing economy. An economy is a multifaceted thing, and having the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years is in my mind at least, quite the accomplishment. I suppose if you argue semantics, that isn't recordbreaking though. I don't believe I'm moving goalposts, I believe you're misrepresenting what I have said. I think we can agree it's not fair to look at the market during a pandemic year, which has global consequences and knock-on effects throughout the stock market, but he grew the stock market an average of 14% YoY his first three years. On the topics of records, he also extended the bull market to be the longest in US history - which is why his 14% performance is fantastic. The market should have had a downturn - in fact the economy broke another record - the longest time without a recession in US History (which ended due to the pandemic). You claimed he grew the economy on par with China, then changed that to growing the SP500 valuation (on par with China? What would that even mean? It's not clear as you clearly intended this to be a GDP vs GDP comparison until I explained to you that Trump did not deliver meaningful growth in GDP) You claimed it was recordbreaking growth when it was below both Obama and Bill Clinton growth. It broke no records. You claimed it was caused by the tax cuts when there were 8 solid years of growth before the tax cuts and a recession 15 months after the tax cuts took effect. At a certain point here you have to concede that some of these talking points simply don't hold up to the evidence. I'm not surprised that you hold these beliefs, they're claims that have been repeated over and over by Trump and his mouthpieces and you've clearly incorporated them into your worldview to an extent. But at a certain point you need to start letting evidence in. You've been lied to. The GDP growth that was promised in 2016 never happened. The tax cuts didn't start the stock market boom. The stock market boom wasn't even much of a boom.
Literally everything I'm saying comes from proprietary market research that I have access to due to my job. The people writing these have no political agenda, but try to call how the market reacts. Things like being the longest time without a recession is a very big deal from a technical perspective. Likewise, the GDP vs return split is something that I knew was different from the start.
|
I'd still continue to wait on Pennsylvania to be honest.
It's going the way I'm expecting honestly with the initial Trump surge. Got to wait for the mail-in ballots, which can shift things dramatically.
|
with Arizona called, and Maine looking good, Penn + Mich = 270, big if, but still
|
On November 04 2020 13:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide. can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win? i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer
It’s a way to throw a bone to confederates to keep the peace. Always has been. Here we are.
|
On November 04 2020 13:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:25 Laurens wrote:
Iowa just flipped red with 73% counted.
Pretty sure Trump has it tbh, going back to bed, we'll see what I wake up to! Not on NBC or NYT trackers.
NPR flipped it.
|
Looks like the big three are saying they are not going to post tonight. And that is not unusual, they legally have like a week i think. Seems they are having real big staffing issues with covid.
|
On November 04 2020 13:30 Cricketer12 wrote:
with Arizona called, and Maine looking good, Penn + Mich = 270, big if, but still
AZ, PA, WI, MI are the last states realistically in play. Biden needs at least three to win.
|
On November 04 2020 13:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide. can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win? i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer
It has two purposes.
The first is that it allowed each state to have its own say in who would represent the federal power. When it was made, the US was more like the EU in how different the culture could be between States. Essentially it was a compromise to get more States to sign on to agree to limit their own power.
(We can go on about how part of it involved the 3/5 compromise, which gave slave states more power than they deserved, but that's really no longer relevant at all).
The second purpose, why there are individual electors and not just a rubber stamp for an individual running, is that it's supposed to be a safeguard against the "common people" electing a complete and total nitwit or nutjob as president.
|
United States44205 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:29 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:19 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 13:13 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:59 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:56 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:52 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:48 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:45 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 12:42 Monochromatic wrote:On November 04 2020 12:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
But it's not what you originally claimed. You claimed Trump delivered more GDP. Now you're saying that due to QE Trump has delivered higher valuations on the same GDP. Do you see why that's not proof of your original claim? No. I'm saying that despite lower GDP, we've managed to match China's market growth, and that the economy has been amazing - two separate thoughts. A large part of this (both the valuations and the economy) was the corporate tax cut, which was 100% Trump. US unemployment hit the lowest level for 50 years. Removing regulations has also supercharged the economy. To your point about fake buybacks and low rates, that's the QE. To the massive growth in SMEs, I award that to Trump's policies. If the growth was due to the tax cut then why did it start 8 years before the tax cut? That's a little silly. Sure, he inherited a growing economy. His policies turned it into a record-breaking one. But he didn't. Look at the SP500 growth by year from 2009 to 2020. The numbers don't support your claim. 2009 - 23% 2010 - 13% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 13% 2013 - 30% 2014 - 11% 2015 - (1%) 2016 - 10% 2017 (Trump's first year) - 19% 2018 - (6%) 2019 (year in which the tax cuts took effect, funded by huge deficit spending) 29% 2020 4% Trump performed less well, on average, than Obama. Which record do you think Trump broke on growth in valuations? He's in the bottom half of Presidents. He constantly tweets about it but the numbers simply don't support any conclusion but that the man is a liar. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey 17 was great, 18 ended on a major, but very short downturn, 19 was good, and 2020 is a pandemic. I think that's a quite good track record. Sorry, is the claim now that Trump has performed at a solid B average? Two posts ago it was that it was recordbreaking. He's 3rd out of the last 4 presidents in growth in market valuations and the guy he beat literally presided over the collapse of global capitalism. You keep shifting the goalposts. You started with Trump growing the economy at an unprecedented pace. You then changed that to Trump growing the valuation of major companies at an unprecedented pace while keeping the economy growing slowly. Now you're arguing that Trump grew the valuation of major companies at a below average rate but that you'd still give him a passing grade. Please argue your original claim, that Trump delivered record breaking growth. My original claim is that Trump grew the stock market on pace with China's, despite lower GDP growth, and that we have had an amazing economy. An economy is a multifaceted thing, and having the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years is in my mind at least, quite the accomplishment. I suppose if you argue semantics, that isn't recordbreaking though. I don't believe I'm moving goalposts, I believe you're misrepresenting what I have said. I think we can agree it's not fair to look at the market during a pandemic year, which has global consequences and knock-on effects throughout the stock market, but he grew the stock market an average of 14% YoY his first three years. On the topics of records, he also extended the bull market to be the longest in US history - which is why his 14% performance is fantastic. The market should have had a downturn - in fact the economy broke another record - the longest time without a recession in US History (which ended due to the pandemic). You claimed he grew the economy on par with China, then changed that to growing the SP500 valuation (on par with China? What would that even mean? It's not clear as you clearly intended this to be a GDP vs GDP comparison until I explained to you that Trump did not deliver meaningful growth in GDP) You claimed it was recordbreaking growth when it was below both Obama and Bill Clinton growth. It broke no records. You claimed it was caused by the tax cuts when there were 8 solid years of growth before the tax cuts and a recession 15 months after the tax cuts took effect. At a certain point here you have to concede that some of these talking points simply don't hold up to the evidence. I'm not surprised that you hold these beliefs, they're claims that have been repeated over and over by Trump and his mouthpieces and you've clearly incorporated them into your worldview to an extent. But at a certain point you need to start letting evidence in. You've been lied to. The GDP growth that was promised in 2016 never happened. The tax cuts didn't start the stock market boom. The stock market boom wasn't even much of a boom. Literally everything I'm saying comes from proprietary market research that I have access to due to my job. The people writing these have no political agenda, but try to call how the market reacts. Things like being the longest time without a recession is a very big deal from a technical perspective. Likewise, the GDP vs return split is something that I knew was different from the start.
Sorry, just to be clear, your claim is now that the proprietary market research that you have due to your job but can't share with the rest of us leads you to believe that even though the SP500 under Trump did less well than it did under Clinton or Obama it was still recordbreaking growth? Even though it's publicly available information and the numbers clearly disagree?
That's what you're going with? Why not go one step further and tell us that your girlfriend told you it was recordbreaking but we can't ask her because she goes to a different school and lives in Canada?
|
United States10530 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide. can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win? i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer
So I'm definitely a fan of the electoral college, or at least, the idea behind it but I think some modifications are needed. The idea is that our House/Senate was founded on the compromise between large and small states (the Pennsylvania plan during the Constitutional Conventions) and so we just decided to add those two together to come out to the electoral college. The problem with it is as you can see, winner take all so winning 49-48 gives you all the votes.
I think it's a good system because definitely we should still care about what happens in small states. But I agree that the larger states don't really get their voice heard as much, and that swing states dominate elections while states like California don't really matter as much since we already know how it's going to vote.
Proposed ideas to modify would be to do what Nebraska and Maine do and go by winner gets the senate seats, then the congressional districts award the next votes (Nebraska has 3 districts, Maine has 2). The other is proportional voting. Example: If a state has 10 electoral votes, and it was 60-40, the winner gets 6 electoral votes and the loser gets 4.
Just some thoughts to help bring it closer to a hybrid format between electoral college and popular vote.
|
On November 04 2020 13:32 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 04 2020 13:24 Nevuk wrote:
To be fair, that's the electoral college. A system so bonkers that no other country has ever even considered it. Without it this would be a yawn inducing landslide. can anyone explain to me in simple terms what the actual benefit is of having the electoral college over popular vote? how is it even a democracy if the real popular vote doesnt get you the win? i cant be bothered to google through pages of shit to find an answer ... The second purpose, why there are individual electors, is that it's supposed to be a safeguard against the "common people" electing a complete and total nitwit or nutjob as president.
Well bang up job it's doing at that
|
Biden campaign supposedly has confidence in MI because the urban areas are apparently significantly under-reporting currently.
|
Fox states Biden takes Arizona. Might as well go to sleep as PA, WI, MI have said they won't report tonight.
Expect GOP lawyers to start filing legal broadsides through the night to stop counting votes etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
