My friend and I are currently in a debate regarding economic policies and taxes.

[Mircea]

The Stock Markets are a forward looking indicator.

No.

The Stock Markets are an indicator of where investors are putting their money and nothing more.

That is the only thing Stock Markets indicate.

For those of you too timid to take the Stock Market Quiz:

#1: The stock market is setting weekly record-breaking highs continuously for ~18 months. Characterize the state of the US economy (ie, in a recession or growing)

Answer: If you said the economy was performing anything other than a disaster, you're wrong. The Stock Market set weekly record highs during the 1925 Recession, the 1928 Recession and the 1960 Recession and monthly record highs in two other recessions.

Recessions do not cause bad Stock Market performance.

#2 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days. Characterize the state of the US economy during that period.

Answer: If you didn't characteristic the economy as totally stonking on fire, you're wrong. Average annual GDP growth was 12.5% and quarterly GDP growth ranged from 8.5% to 15% per quarter.

Poor Stock Market performance is not an indicator of a bad economy.

#3 The stock market sets records over a period of 651 days with the DOW doubling in value. Tell us how the economy is doing
.
Answer: That would be the 1960-1961 Recession. Had you panicked when hearing the Media say "recession" and dumped your stocks, you would have lost out. One reason JFK won the 1960 Election is because that was the 3rd recession during Eisencoward's 8 years and people were real tired of recessions.

#4 The stock market loses 45.1% of its "value" over a period of 694 days. How well is the economy doing?

Answer: The economy wasn't on fire, but it was chugging along with quarterly GDP growth rates of 1.5% to 6.0%.

Stock Markets have no bearing on the economy and are not a reflection of the economy because they are separate and independent from the economy.

Only 3% of US businesses sell stocks and they employ 5.6% of the work-force.

Put another way, 97% of US business are prohibited from selling stocks and they employ 94.4% of the work-force.

The Stock Market is an indicator of where investors are putting their money and nothing.

For those people who see anything other than that, they got meds for people who have too many mystical experiences.
Quote Reply

Report

 

[Mircea]

I've used the OJ Simpson trial example in other DP threads where OJ's lawyer Robert Shapiro had OJ try to put on the gloves to show they didn't fit and the judge, Ito, didn't disallow it or tell the jury to disregard it even though said glove trying on spectacle wasn't based on fact.

The Houdini Trick.

I've done the glove trick for dozens of people. I put the glove on, then I take the glove off and then I can't get the glove back on.

People ask how I do it. I tell them to read about Harry Houdini. He wasn't just a magician, he was a contortionist, too, and he had great control over all his muscles. He would do things like sit around for hours untying a shoe with his toes.

Marcia Clark was stupid. What she should have done was put the glove on OJ for him.

Ever put a glove on a kid? The first thing you tell them to do is relax their hand so the glove goes on easy.

She would have felt the muscles in his hand and fingers all tense and tight and she would have started telling him, "Relax your hand, relax your hand, relax your hand" and everyone would have he known he was guilty (and he was).



Quote Reply

Report

 

[Mircea]

This is undoubtedly true, however, you are ignoring the fact that the U-5 unemployment rate had been on a steady linear decline from November of 2010 through July of 2018 when the economy essentially hit full U-5 employment and only then did the demand for more workers increase the wages.

U-5? That's absurd.

U-5 is based on emotion, not reality.

I'll grant you that 12 months was too long a time and warranted a change -- and that change was made in 1994 -- but 30 days is not currently realistic.

30 days may have been realistic in 1994, but today it takes about 90 days to get a job.

Why? You can thank the government for that.

Every time the government makes it more difficult and costly to terminate a marginal or under-performing employee or a total train-wreck, employers respond by expanding the vetting process.

Used to be you went in for an interview and you'd have an answer in a couple days or weeks. Not any more.

Since about 2010, employers do phone interviews, which are done online now. If you're worth talking to, they'll bring you in a week later for a real interview and if you might be a good fit, they'll bring you back a week or two later to meet with the team leader or immediate chain of command to see if they can work with you.

It takes about 4-6 weeks.

So, really, the survey needs to be adjusted to:

1) Do you want to work? If yes, then.
2) Are you available to work? If yes, then
3) Have you sought work in the previous 90 days.

That will give you the most accurate measure of the real unemployment rate.

The marginally attached have been consistent except for periods of high unemployment because it is a core group of nutters who are wrapped a little too tightly for this world.

These are people seeking jobs for which they're not even remotely qualified; who turn down a job offer of $61,800 because they wanted $62,000 (and never mind that they'll get a $5,000 raise in 6 months); who are marine biologists living in Nebraska in spite of the fact that there hasn't been a coastline in Nebraska for 220 Million years and they'll get a job at the local zoo just as soon as somebody dies or retires (yeah, sometimes you have to relocate); or they have a degree in the Culinary Preferences of Transgender Transvestite Lesbian Midgets in 12th Century London and because they can't get a job they take their toys and go home.'

The people working part-time for economic reasons should be totally ignored, since that is their choice.

Those are people who work part-time around their kids' schedules or they're a care-giver for a family member

And 16 years? Really? That might have been appropriate in 1930 when kids quit school in the 8th or 10th Grades to work, but for the last 40 years we've been telling kids to stay in school and they can't stay in school and work full-time and most States bar kids under 18 from operating any machinery with moving parts so they're very limited in the employment they can do.

The civil non-institutionalized population needs to be moved to 18 years and above.

 

[Mircea]

Most recently:

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28388:

...we assembled the entire set of published studies in this literature and identified the core estimates that support the conclusions from each study, in most cases relying on responses from the researchers who wrote these papers.

Our key conclusions are:
(i) there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates in the literature;
(ii) this evidence is stronger for teens and young adults as well as the less-educated;
(iii) the evidence from studies of directly-affected workers points even more strongly to negative employment effects; and
(iv) the evidence from studies of low-wage industries is less one-sided.


There is good daggum reason why the CBO came to the conclusion it did, and, MW advocates would be a lot more convincing if they were willing to deal with the unintended but utterly predictable negative consequences of their preferred policy change.

That's absolutely right.

What those idiots don't understand is that every time you increase the minimum wage, you expand the geographical labor market.

Why? It's a function of Opportunity Costs.

Tammy Trailerparktrash out in rural Batavia, Ohio isn't going to drive to the Big City to work for $5.15/hour because it ain't worth her while in time and gas money. She'd probably lose money.

But, raise the minimum wage to $7.25/hour and now you just made it worth her while.

And Billy Greenteeth out in Felicity in Brown County ain't gonna make a 2-hour round trip for $7.25/hour when he only needs $6.00/hour to live on because his double wide trailer on 4 acres of land he rents is only $250/month.

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and he'll be Johnny-on-the-spot and living high on the hog, because $15/hour to him is like $50/hour to you.

What do Tammy Trailerpark and Billy Greenteeth got that Inner City Gangsta Rapper don't?

A high school diploma, plus they speak English and they'll show up and on time every day and actually because they have a work ethic instead of a handout ethic.

These studies that show there's no harm have flawed methodologies because they look at total labor hours instead of hours per employee.

Tu-Pac and 30-Cent and Fabian were getting 12 hours a week until Billy Greenteeth shows up and then their hours are cut to 4 hours and Billy takes 8 hours from each of them to get 24 hours.

That's what those studies don't show you.

 

[cpwill]

That's absolutely right.

What those idiots don't understand is that every time you increase the minimum wage, you expand the geographical labor market.

Why? It's a function of Opportunity Costs.

Tammy Trailerparktrash out in rural Batavia, Ohio isn't going to drive to the Big City to work for $5.15/hour because it ain't worth her while in time and gas money. She'd probably lose money.

But, raise the minimum wage to $7.25/hour and now you just made it worth her while.

And Billy Greenteeth out in Felicity in Brown County ain't gonna make a 2-hour round trip for $7.25/hour when he only needs $6.00/hour to live on because his double wide trailer on 4 acres of land he rents is only $250/month.

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and he'll be Johnny-on-the-spot and living high on the hog, because $15/hour to him is like $50/hour to you.

What do Tammy Trailerpark and Billy Greenteeth got that Inner City Gangsta Rapper don't?

A high school diploma, plus they speak English and they'll show up and on time every day and actually because they have a work ethic instead of a handout ethic.

These studies that show there's no harm have flawed methodologies because they look at total labor hours instead of hours per employee.

Tu-Pac and 30-Cent and Fabian were getting 12 hours a week until Billy Greenteeth shows up and then their hours are cut to 4 hours and Billy takes 8 hours from each of them to get 24 hours.

That's what those studies don't show you.

In this day and age, Tammy and Billy are probably on meth, but Juan and Carlos are happy to help, just as soon as they can make it up here...

 

[code1211]

Elected representatives are trying to keep their respectable status as elected officials by not investigating possibly fraudulent election results??

At least, this observation of mine concludes that our elected officials care more about themselves than the people they represent.

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS.

In passing, Constitutional Amendments do NOT require approval by Congress to be initiated.

I'm not the guy to initiate this, but if a movement rises, I'll go door to door getting signatures.

Part of the virtually endless and indecipherable single sentence of Article V seems to describe this process.

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

<snip>
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

My solution is to clean up the election process by putting into law measures to easily and independently audit the results of elections.

The lying crooks we elect set rules both, ethical and unethical, using methods, both legal and illegal, that will guide auditors to find that the rules were followed.

Auditors don't seek or find "right and wrong". They only find either compliant or non-compliant.

 

[code1211]

Fine, but a very small reduction in jobs doesn't have to result in an increase in unemployment. Again, 13,000,000 Americans work multiple jobs currently, most of them for economic reasons. Those are not just a couple of part time jobs, about 60% of those have a full time job and 20% have two full time jobs. When those Americans can make ends meet from one job, they are unlikely to all continue working two jobs. So what is going to happen when 2 million people get a raise in their primary job? Do you think people are going to keep working 80 hours per week because they want to?

A small decrease in jobs doesn't have to lead to a small increase in unemployment.


Employers are not relocating to different places to escape low wage labor. No one is moving a factory to get away from people making $30k per year.

Then why didn't we see an increase in WACC and CAPE ratios in response? Companies were already fully funded and required rates were already pricing in the inefficiency. When capital is cheap and easy to obtain then companies don't respond to incentives by increasing project development (i.e. hiring new employees, developing new projects, etc.). We can get into the myriad of reasons why, but it doesn't matter. In the end, when steak is cheaper than bologna, you can't stimulate steak consumption by making it cheaper.

I don't know the motivation(s) of all people. I know one person who works three jobs. He may be an "illegal immigrant". I don't know. He sends much of his income back to Mexico to support his wife and kids.

If he was able to send more money to his wife and kids, would he avoid that chance? I don't know.

You seem to be saying that higher wages will increase unemployment. Well, alright... I suppose. That's one way to see things. In my life, more money meant more money. I STILL worked the same or more hours. Maybe that's just me.

In Duluth, Minnesota where I grew up, the major manufacturers in town were driven away by increased taxes in one case and regulatory constrictions in another.

It actually happened in the real world in the past and seems to be happening in the real world right now. Seems to be a logical response by business owners to leave places where the government demonstrates they are not wanted.

The AVERAGE hourly wage in the US is far above a $30,000/year income.

That last bit about steak and bologna is not appropriate. When there is a finite number of employees in a too small pool to attract, the employers need to increase that which attracts them.

When ALL of the bologna and ALL the steak are in short supply, those selling either will raise their price.

The saying, "The Only Game In Town", comes to mind.

 

[code1211]

Of course it's not Trump's fault. It can't be his fault - for anything. The buck never paused at his desk.


Whatever.... There's no evidence of vote flipping, dead people, etc. And there's a difference in the system dominated by big money and all the rest being not 'ethical' versus in GA Dominion flipped votes, or that 5,000 dead people voted, or that someone bussed people across state lines.

We actually have some pretty good evidence that ballots for people who were dead were submitted. Is this evidence of corruption or the after life? We may never know.

I don't know every detail of every ballot ever submitted, but I DO know that politicians are generally crooked, self serving, lying thieves.

For evidence, check and see what politicians say about other politicians. Takes one to know one.

As it happens, politicians design and run our elections. ANY device that can be used to limit dishonesty SHOULD be used.

When I see that crooks are devising and implementing tools to pervert outcomes into the processes involved, it raises a red flag for me.

I have locks on the doors of my house. Don't you? I also have glass windows. The locks only keep the honest folks honest. A devoted crook could still break a window if he REALLY wanted to gain entry.

In less peaceful areas of town, I see bars and heavy screens covering windows and doors.

Security seems to match up with threat in most cases. Not elections. The reasons are not mysterious. When the crooks are designing the safeguards, the effectiveness seems likely to decrease.

Dead people caught voting in NYC, elections records show

Ballots have been mailed in to the New York City Board of Elections in the name of dead voters, The Post has learned. Records show that the elections board received an absentee ballot from a France…

nypost.com

 

[cabse5]

The lying crooks we elect set rules both, ethical and unethical, using methods, both legal and illegal, that will guide auditors to find that the rules were followed.

Auditors don't seek or find "right and wrong". They only find either compliant or non-compliant.

The average American who still gets to elect their representatives (I hope) should elect representatives who will enact laws which will truly audit elections for fairness and freeness.

County and state election agencies have a singular job of trying to ensure all elections in their jurisdiction are free and fair and these agencies have a vested interest in declaring that their elections are free and fair because, otherwise, that agency appears incompetent. Some agency(s) must be independent of the state or county election agency and have the ability to audit every election result for its freeness and fairness. Ballots must be kept pristine for this independent verification to occur.

 

[code1211]

Yeah..you pretty much got that wrong.
Obamas administration knew the Russians were trying to influence the election. But didn't think the Russians would be able to..(which they were right)
And they didn't want to announce what they knew publicly for fear it WOULD interfere with the election and bias voting in favor of Clinton.
That's why they held off.
After the election they continued investigating. But Trump won..and the investigation continued until Jeff sessions realized that there was a conflict of interest and stepped aside..so a special counsel was appointed. So that any investigation would be fair and impartial despite the political ramifications

The investigation(s) revealed that there was no factual basis for the outcries from the blatantly partisan investigators.

The investigations seemed to have started with the Democrat Party's invention of a fantasy. It was perpetuated by the same agents peddling the same fantasy.

The Russians are said to have spent $100,000 to influence the election buying Facebook ads. RU serious?

Why is it that only Republicans "stepped aside" in view of conflicts of interest? Why is it that so many Democrats lied in so many instances?

When will we EVER see the evidence that Schiff, Brennan, Clapper, Comey and all the rest said existed?

In public, they said it existed. Under oath, they said it did not. I'm more inclined to believe the Under Oath testimony. How about you?

"If this is true, what else must be true?"

 

[code1211]

No.

The Stock Markets are an indicator of where investors are putting their money and nothing more.

That is the only thing Stock Markets indicate.

For those of you too timid to take the Stock Market Quiz:

#1: The stock market is setting weekly record-breaking highs continuously for ~18 months. Characterize the state of the US economy (ie, in a recession or growing)

Answer: If you said the economy was performing anything other than a disaster, you're wrong. The Stock Market set weekly record highs during the 1925 Recession, the 1928 Recession and the 1960 Recession and monthly record highs in two other recessions.

Recessions do not cause bad Stock Market performance.

#2 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days. Characterize the state of the US economy during that period.

Answer: If you didn't characteristic the economy as totally stonking on fire, you're wrong. Average annual GDP growth was 12.5% and quarterly GDP growth ranged from 8.5% to 15% per quarter.

Poor Stock Market performance is not an indicator of a bad economy.

#3 The stock market sets records over a period of 651 days with the DOW doubling in value. Tell us how the economy is doing
.
Answer: That would be the 1960-1961 Recession. Had you panicked when hearing the Media say "recession" and dumped your stocks, you would have lost out. One reason JFK won the 1960 Election is because that was the 3rd recession during Eisencoward's 8 years and people were real tired of recessions.

#4 The stock market loses 45.1% of its "value" over a period of 694 days. How well is the economy doing?

Answer: The economy wasn't on fire, but it was chugging along with quarterly GDP growth rates of 1.5% to 6.0%.

Stock Markets have no bearing on the economy and are not a reflection of the economy because they are separate and independent from the economy.

Only 3% of US businesses sell stocks and they employ 5.6% of the work-force.

Put another way, 97% of US business are prohibited from selling stocks and they employ 94.4% of the work-force.

The Stock Market is an indicator of where investors are putting their money and nothing.

For those people who see anything other than that, they got meds for people who have too many mystical experiences.
Quote Reply

With respect, Stock Markets are the accumulated data that indicates where people are investing their money. They are pretty much only a poll of those that have interest in the future outcomes.

As such, they are pretty much just bets on what is going to happen in the future. Sometimes the bets are good indicators and sometimes not. Tampa Bay beat KC. The indicators of those interested were wrong in that case.

As an example, I invested about $3100 in a few stocks hoping that they would increase when the stocks in the US had generally lost about half their value in march 2020.

As many people believed, I believed that the value of the Stock for the companies that I chose would increase.

They did. My $3100 is now about $5400. The values seem to continue to rise. About 2/3 of the companies I chose are not yet back to their 12 month highs.

Stock markets don't make the economy move, but they do track the majority view of those that invest. Ergo, they are INDICATORS.

Since they INDICATE what the folks who invest believe will happen in the future, the are FORWARD LOOKING INDICATORS.

Factors include, but are not limited to, the general health of the companies, the options available to invest elsewhere and the general economies.

That is why they are ONLY indicators.

 

[JasperL]

We actually have some pretty good evidence that ballots for people who were dead were submitted. Is this evidence of corruption or the after life? We may never know.

Yes, and your article references 1 or 2 "dead" voters. That's the pattern. Trump alleged 5,000. Trump is a shameless liar, and the existence of handful in one of the most populous cities in America isn't a defense of that ****ing liar.

I don't know every detail of every ballot ever submitted, but I DO know that politicians are generally crooked, self serving, lying thieves.

For evidence, check and see what politicians say about other politicians. Takes one to know one.

As it happens, politicians design and run our elections. ANY device that can be used to limit dishonesty SHOULD be used.

When I see that crooks are devising and implementing tools to pervert outcomes into the processes involved, it raises a red flag for me.

I have locks on the doors of my house. Don't you? I also have glass windows. The locks only keep the honest folks honest. A devoted crook could still break a window if he REALLY wanted to gain entry.

In less peaceful areas of town, I see bars and heavy screens covering windows and doors.

Security seems to match up with threat in most cases. Not elections. The reasons are not mysterious. When the crooks are designing the safeguards, the effectiveness seems likely to decrease.

Dead people caught voting in NYC, elections records show

Ballots have been mailed in to the New York City Board of Elections in the name of dead voters, The Post has learned. Records show that the elections board received an absentee ballot from a France…

nypost.com

Whatever.... maybe we can use optical scanners, or screen voters like we do people at the airport. All it would take is massive investments in technology then the equivalent of TSA agents manning 10s of thousands of voting precincts. You should write a state legislator and see if they can find the funding for that, and the people. Trump lost - SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!

 

[jaeger19]

The investigation(s) revealed that there was no factual basis for the outcries from the blatantly partisan investigators.

The investigations seemed to have started with the Democrat Party's invention of a fantasy. It was perpetuated by the same agents peddling the same fantasy.

The Russians are said to have spent $100,000 to influence the election buying Facebook ads. RU serious?

Why is it that only Republicans "stepped aside" in view of conflicts of interest? Why is it that so many Democrats lied in so many instances?

When will we EVER see the evidence that Schiff, Brennan, Clapper, Comey and all the rest said existed?

In public, they said it existed. Under oath, they said it did not. I'm more inclined to believe the Under Oath testimony. How about you?

"If this is true, what else must be true?"

Hmm..so if there was nothing to the investigation...
Why were their multiple indictments of Russian nationals..indictments and convictions of a number of Americans?

 

[jaeger19]

First, can you point to where I said there is no negative effect on the economy? Since you can't let's just admit that is because I didn't say that. There are actually both positive and negative effects on the economy, however, generally speaking a stable and moderate inflation rate drives spending. There is an incentive to buy things now rather than wait, and this goes for companies as well as individuals. The key is stability in the rates.

Economies flourish under consumption, which is one of the reasons why an increase in minimum wages is good for the economy is that it will stimulate consumption. In the end, the absolute best thing for all businesses, small and large, is more consumers. There is simply no viable argument against the overwhelming power of consumption to drive the economy. However, we want to be sure we are protecting personal savings as we drive consumption. This is why a minimum wage of $15 is not equal to a minimum wage of $50 per hour and why your hypothetical fails. Just because a specific increase in minimum wage will add to consumption while having insignificant effects on inflation and therefore savings, doesn't mean that any increase in minimum wage will have the same linear increase in consumption and insignificant effects on inflation.

I don't have time to watch you run around with the goalposts

 

[Waddy]

"Trickle down" is a biased and propagandistic reference to describe market driven forces dictating out comes.

So, under Trump, about 11,000 jobs are created to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. pipelines make transport of gases and fluids far more efficient. Biden stops this putting 11,000 high paid workers out of work.

Also eliminated will be the 4 to 5 support jobs that exist as a by product of the wages paid and then spent by folks in this sort of base industry.

The oil will still be taken from the ground, the oil will still still be shipped and the oil will still be refined.

Biden's stupid plan will end up raising costs for that oil, increasing CO2 produced in the process of transport by either truck or train and do NOTHING to help the environment.

Biden's plan is based on political deception, cronyism and expected pay backs to his campaign funds. Trump's plan was based on Market Driven Forces to deliver the same product as a better cost with less effort.

Which plan makes more sense to you?

Exactly. It will be transported by rail, and not add any meaningful numbers of additional jobs. Because the infrastructure is already in place; the tracks are laid and the tanker cars already manufactured. It simply costs more, a lot more. But increasing energy costs, no matter how much it harms the working class, is part of the liberal game plan. They want private transportation to be the domain of the well to do, and everybody else on public transportation. Just like the want their own body guards armed, walls around their own property, but no one else allowed to own a gun to defend themselves. They put their own kids in expensive private schools but won't allow working class parents the means to do the same. Liberals are hypocrites.

 

[code1211]

The average American who still gets to elect their representatives (I hope) should elect representatives who will enact laws which will truly audit elections for fairness and freeness.

County and state election agencies have a singular job of trying to ensure all elections in their jurisdiction are free and fair and these agencies have a vested interest in declaring that their elections are free and fair because, otherwise, that agency appears incompetent. Some agency(s) must be independent of the state or county election agency and have the ability to audit every election result for its freeness and fairness. Ballots must be kept pristine for this independent verification to occur.

I also wish that government officials and elected representatives were honest and ethical arbiters of objective truth and philosophical justice.

Seems like many years ago, I discovered that government officials are, at best, uncaring automatons just turning the cranks to make the machine move who also do "favors" for friends and allies.

Politicians are lying thieves. I don't say this out of bias free of experience. I say it out of profound disappointment in view of the outcomes that they all contribute to.

The effectiveness of government is stagnant or diminished. The cost of government is skyrocketing. Our educational system is a GREAT example of this cost/effectiveness imbalance.

Given the FACT that we have crooks, swindlers and thieves setting the rules and automatons with personal and systemic biases executing them, we have crooked elections.

There is no other possible outcome.

 

[code1211]

Yes, and your article references 1 or 2 "dead" voters. That's the pattern. Trump alleged 5,000. Trump is a shameless liar, and the existence of handful in one of the most populous cities in America isn't a defense of that ****ing liar.


Whatever.... maybe we can use optical scanners, or screen voters like we do people at the airport. All it would take is massive investments in technology then the equivalent of TSA agents manning 10s of thousands of voting precincts. You should write a state legislator and see if they can find the funding for that, and the people. Trump lost - SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!

If Trump is a liar, that does exactly NOTHING to prove or disprove the honesty of voters, election officials and politicians. The two topics are unrelated from any evidentiary point of view.

In truth, as a member of the general category of "Politicians", identifying Trump as a liar seems to paint the rest of the group as well.

My question is a pretty simple one. I'm only wondering why the only verification measure employed in Pennsylvania connecting the ballot submitted to the registered voter was eliminated and NOTHING replaced it.

Photo ID is a pretty reliable measure that could easily be employed and DOES incorporate the measures recognized by the TSA. No star on my Driver's license and I don't fly.

Why are reliable measures for verification avoided in verifying voter's qualifications?

 

[code1211]

Hmm..so if there was nothing to the investigation...
Why were their multiple indictments of Russian nationals..indictments and convictions of a number of Americans?

There were various charges leveled against the president and associates of the president. All of them seem to have fallen apart "upon further review".

Convictions seem to have relied on process crimes that never would have happened if the investigation had never happened.

The investigation CAUSED the crimes on which convictions were successfully prosecuted.

They did not investigate crimes. They created crimes.

Regarding the charges leveled against foreign nationals, I heard of one very prominent case in which the accused actually showed up and Mueller and his goons refused to proceed BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT READY TO PROCEED.

It was a show or a sham or whatever you care to call it. What it was NOT was a serious indictment.

Facing humiliation, Mueller backs away from prosecution of Russian entities

The Mueller special counsel investigation purportedly was instigated to discover possible illicit Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election but now is backing away from the only indictments aimed at Russian entities, leaving only alleged pr...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[jaeger19]

There were various charges leveled against the president and associates of the president. All of them seem to have fallen apart "upon further review".

Convictions seem to have relied on process crimes that never would have happened if the investigation had never happened.

The investigation CAUSED the crimes on which convictions were successfully prosecuted.

They did not investigate crimes. They created crimes.

Regarding the charges leveled against foreign nationals, I heard of one very prominent case in which the accused actually showed up and Mueller and his goons refused to proceed BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT READY TO PROCEED.

It was a show or a sham or whatever you care to call it. What it was NOT was a serious indictment.

Facing humiliation, Mueller backs away from prosecution of Russian entities

The Mueller special counsel investigation purportedly was instigated to discover possible illicit Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election but now is backing away from the only indictments aimed at Russian entities, leaving only alleged pr...

www.americanthinker.com

By which investigators leveled these charges? The purview was to investigate the russian involvement into the election.
It arrived at indictments against a number of russian nationals. and companies. but I guess.. we should just ignore that.. because it was all a witchhunt right? Why bother right? Hey comrade?
It followed up to the Trump campaign.. because why? The campaign had ties to a number of russians. In fact.. met with russians or had worked for russian backed foriegn companies..
And those campaign officials.. LIED about meeting with russians.. or were caught committing tax fraud. or varies other crimes.

:but but if there wasn;t an investigation.. they would not have been convicted? THATS your excuse? Of course they wouldn;t be convicted without an investigation.. this is the US now.
But.. wait.. so you think... that its fine that when being investigated for possible connection with a foreign power.. who is trying to subvert our democracy... it should be fine for citizens to LIE to investigators about those connections? You think its fine to tamper with witnesses.. its fine to

By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.
One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.
A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

\https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/11/mueller-stone-oped/?arc404=true

 

[cabse5]

"Trickle down" is a biased and propagandistic reference to describe market driven forces dictating out comes.

So, under Trump, about 11,000 jobs are created to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. pipelines make transport of gases and fluids far more efficient. Biden stops this putting 11,000 high paid workers out of work.

Also eliminated will be the 4 to 5 support jobs that exist as a by product of the wages paid and then spent by folks in this sort of base industry.

The oil will still be taken from the ground, the oil will still still be shipped and the oil will still be refined.

Biden's stupid plan will end up raising costs for that oil, increasing CO2 produced in the process of transport by either truck or train and do NOTHING to help the environment.

Biden's plan is based on political deception, cronyism and expected pay backs to his campaign funds. Trump's plan was based on Market Driven Forces to deliver the same product as a better cost with less effort.

Which plan makes more sense to you?

You realize, to them, capitalist-based plans are indefensible?

 

[cabse5]

I also wish that government officials and elected representatives were honest and ethical arbiters of objective truth and philosophical justice.

Seems like many years ago, I discovered that government officials are, at best, uncaring automatons just turning the cranks to make the machine move who also do "favors" for friends and allies.

Politicians are lying thieves. I don't say this out of bias free of experience. I say it out of profound disappointment in view of the outcomes that they all contribute to.

The effectiveness of government is stagnant or diminished. The cost of government is skyrocketing. Our educational system is a GREAT example of this cost/effectiveness imbalance.

Given the FACT that we have crooks, swindlers and thieves setting the rules and automatons with personal and systemic biases executing them, we have crooked elections.

There is no other possible outcome.

The people must revolt against unethical elections because our thoughts and voices aren't being represented in American government.. The founders would be highly distressed to learn how corrupt our government has become.

 

[code1211]

By which investigators leveled these charges? The purview was to investigate the russian involvement into the election.
It arrived at indictments against a number of russian nationals. and companies. but I guess.. we should just ignore that.. because it was all a witchhunt right? Why bother right? Hey comrade?
It followed up to the Trump campaign.. because why? The campaign had ties to a number of russians. In fact.. met with russians or had worked for russian backed foriegn companies..
And those campaign officials.. LIED about meeting with russians.. or were caught committing tax fraud. or varies other crimes.

:but but if there wasn;t an investigation.. they would not have been convicted? THATS your excuse? Of course they wouldn;t be convicted without an investigation.. this is the US now.
But.. wait.. so you think... that its fine that when being investigated for possible connection with a foreign power.. who is trying to subvert our democracy... it should be fine for citizens to LIE to investigators about those connections? You think its fine to tamper with witnesses.. its fine to






\https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/11/mueller-stone-oped/?arc404=true

Well, I think I see the problem. You LITERALLY don't know what you are talking about.

You assert that: "The purview was to investigate the russian involvement into the election."

It was not. Read this to correct you misconception.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

 

[jaeger19]

Well, I think I see the problem. You LITERALLY don't know what you are talking about.

You assert that: "The purview was to investigate the russian involvement into the election."

It was not. Read this to correct you misconception.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Yep..you missed that the purview was to investigate the Russian interference in the election..
And it could follow any connections the Russians had with the Trump campaign that the investigation uncovered.
Which it ultimately did.
You do realize that Mueller did find that Russian operatives were meeting with members of the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign had members that had ties to Russia right.?
So you want free and fair elections..
But when 17 us intelligence agencies have evidence that a foreign power has tried to influence a US election. And that evidence leads to Russian operatives meeting or trying to meet with one of the campaigns..and it reveals that some of the folks working for that campaign have ties to that foreign government..
And some of them lie about it..or lie to investigators when questioned..
You think that the us shouldn't be investigating..
Because you want free and fair election?
But with no evidence at all..none..you want another investigation...by who knows..into the 2020 election. After no election fraud has been found?
Give us all a break.
You have been lied to by trump from day one.

 

[code1211]

The people must revolt against unethical elections because our thoughts and voices aren't being represented in American government.. The founders would be highly distressed to learn how corrupt our government has become.

A GREAT example of the lack of ethics in elections exists in Pennsylvania.

They decided that Signatures are not a reliable method to verify the legitimacy of mail in ballots.

A rational solution would have been to define a system by which the legitimacy of ballots COULD be verified.

Instead, they decided that if the recommended system of verification was inadequate, then NO SYSTEM would be employed.

This is, without any doubt whatever, the most irrationally, stupidly, asinine outcome that this consideration COULD produce.

It sounds like the sort of decision that would be produced in a Monty Python skit written to demonstrate how stupid the idiots in charge can be.