|
United States43989 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:53 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:28 Nevuk wrote:
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. The Senate since the 17th Amendment is not really what I would consider republican, sure, the 2 Senators per state, but the actual way they are elected is not - it is democratic. Having the State Legislature select their Senator is republican, having the people vote for statewide office is democratic. You guys hate that too. How can you say get rid of EC, but fine with Wyoming having same Senatorial representation as California?
Does anyone really think that arbitrary state lines justify Wyoming having equal senatorial representation to California? Is there an argument to be made that Wyoming is intrinsically more state-y than, say, Northern California?
|
I'm failing to see the difference in republicanism in those scenarios? The state senators are still elected by the people, so it's just one step further removed.
I would be fine with adding the 17th amendment back in, but not for the reason of Republicanism. It prevents people without any relevant experience from running for office based off irrelevant fame.
Plenty of people complain about senate representation, and point out that it's nuts that Cali gets 2 senators to RI's 2.
I personally think the issue is more McConnell and abuse of procedural rules, but yes, lots of progressives despise the Senate, which is part of why there's such a large movement to add PR and DC as states.
(I do think it's fine but would prefer us to expand it a bit more than 2 per state).
The EC is much more flawed in a fundamental way than the senate is, imo.
|
On November 04 2020 13:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:29 Monochromatic wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Yes. You're free to purchase access to it here.
Just because something sounds extraordinary doesn't mean it's untrue. I understand being skeptical on the internet, but I'm not lying.
|
At this point there are so few new results that our options are to either call it a night, or play theory-oh with the partial results out of the key states.
Oh well, the night has certainly gone quite well so far.
|
Goodnight, everyone. I'm gonna go brush my teeth, read, and bathe in my own existential dread.
|
update:
Philadelphia is counting ballots round the clock.
|
Might be early, but maybe so much for the Democrat salivating over defeating Susan Collins. I remember saying after Kavanaugh that taking her out would be hard, she knows how to win there. Btw I think the closest poll had the race tied.
In curious to see if she wins by double digits. Or maybe she'll still lose.
|
On November 04 2020 14:02 Mohdoo wrote:
Goodnight, everyone. I'm gonna go brush my teeth, read, and bathe in my own existential dread.
Night.
|
United States43989 Posts
On November 04 2020 14:00 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 13:32 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2020 13:29 Monochromatic wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yes. You're free to purchase access to it here. Just because something sounds extraordinary doesn't mean it's untrue. I understand being skeptical on the internet, but I'm not lying.
The fact that stock market growth per year is known and that Trump's market growth per year hasn't been recordbreaking is what makes it untrue. I'm not skeptical, I'm calling you a liar. It's not that I doubt it without seeing your evidence, it's that this is a matter of public record and the evidence is established and contradicts your claims.
|
I think Dems going to lose the MI senate race. James outpacing Trump by like .8% bodes well.
|
So as us on left have dreams shattered about a big biden the win, the question becomes how do we move forward no matter who wins. As they elections has shown we split right down the middle and are so very divided. There are very few issues where we are even close to being in agreement on. Both side think the other is crazy. We are tearing our self apart and i see no way back. What common ground is there to find when we are opposite sides of an ocean.
|
United States10402 Posts
Georgia needle on NYT is actually now leaning Biden. There are some really big districts in Atlanta that still haven't been counted for Biden. Dekalb County still has another 200k vote or so that Biden will gain, meaning the Trump lead would be reduced to about 50k. Pretty much all the red rural districts have already been counted. Pretty interesting here, I think we might get a Georgia announcement tomorrow.
|
On November 04 2020 14:13 FlaShFTW wrote:
Georgia needle on NYT is actually now leaning Biden. There are some really big districts in Atlanta that still haven't been counted for Biden. Dekalb County still has another 200k vote or so that Biden will gain, meaning the Trump lead would be reduced to about 50k. Pretty much all the red rural districts have already been counted. Pretty interesting here, I think we might get a Georgia announcement tomorrow.
That is a huge change.
|
i despise them but I will give republicans credit for being clutch and "playing the game" well
Edit: Since this is a starcraft forum, I'd probably compare them to Life and Savior if they were playing starcraft
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 04 2020 14:13 FlaShFTW wrote:
Georgia needle on NYT is actually now leaning Biden. There are some really big districts in Atlanta that still haven't been counted for Biden. Dekalb County still has another 200k vote or so that Biden will gain, meaning the Trump lead would be reduced to about 50k. Pretty much all the red rural districts have already been counted. Pretty interesting here, I think we might get a Georgia announcement tomorrow.
I want to believe
|
AP calling Minnesota for biden. One rust belt down
edit nm got confused for a second
|
NE-2 looks solidly in Biden's corner. If the race gets super close, this 1 EC vote could actually be crucial.
On November 04 2020 14:17 DropBear wrote:
As a non American who doesn't really understand what's going on, is there a clear leader yet or are things still up in the air?
It's not over for either of them because it looks like it will go down to three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those states count their early ballots later and will probably take until Friday at the latest to finalize. But this was not the blowout for Biden that some predicted, and is almost certainly going to be a nailbiter.
|
As a non American who doesn't really understand what's going on, is there a clear leader yet or are things still up in the air?
|
On November 04 2020 14:17 DropBear wrote:
As a non American who doesn't really understand what's going on, is there a clear leader yet or are things still up in the air?
we wont know anything until 12-18 hours from now at the earliest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
