EU passes the "link tax"

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by M76, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. Gideon

    Gideon 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,163
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Funny thing is, you cant leave the union, you can join but never leave. Funny thing is government needs to scale down, state governments need to go and the federal sets a standard and then counties and local governments set up detailed rules that make sense for their areas. This allows representation of the local area while still allowing a voice in the larger picture and keeps a few big cities from dictating over a entire state how things should be run. Problem is the world thinks going to a one world government is better and the EU is a perfect example of why thats not a good idea.
     
  2. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,566
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Tried liking post 20 times but forum won't do it :(.
     
  3. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    I think you have some serious misunderstandings about how the world actually works.

    In general, criminals are not criminals because they don't have jobs nor because their trying to feed/house/clothe/be responsible for others. Life is not a movie. Criminals are not all Jean Valjean.
    Poverty does not create criminals by default. It's what often is associated with poverty that has a major impact. Number one factor....daddy? If a child has a father or father-figure in the home he is drastically less likely to be a criminal. It does not matter if the family is poor or not. You're welcome to not take my word for it, the research has been done and my comments are not controversial.
    There is no 'job lottery' and the term itself shits on those who struggled to find gainful employment. Those who want jobs, will almost always find one. It may not be the job of their dreams or what they studied for at Uni, but a job can be found by nearly anyone willing to work.

    As to the immigration crisis, what created it is nothing more than poor immigration and border control. Full stop.
    As to aiding other countries....holy balls! Please look into how much foreign aid is given out by OECD countries before you act like nobody is trying to 'uplift' third-world shitholes. Problem isn't the aid. Problem is the third-world shitholes. Corruption when it comes to gov't spending is a problem, a serious problem for even the US with a free (but mentally challenged) press and other assorted liberties....it's a MASSIVE problem elsewhere, especially when it's not even their own money. The only way to have a situation where people from 'western' countries are not inundated by people from elsewhere is to make them all like 'western' countries.....which sounds great....but is utterly impossible without them wanting the exact same things and valuing the exact same things. You can't change culture from the outside nor can you change it with vast sums of aid and crossing your fingers.

    Not every problem has a solution. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is deal with whatever it is as best we can. Wishful thinking does not accomplish anything. Wealth redistribnution is not the answer. Globalization is not the answer.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  4. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,028
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Arguing about the effect being 2x 5x or 20x is besides the point. The fact remains that some votes count more than others.

    The EU has states too, do you presume that they don't wield power over their citizens? The EU has no direct intervening power for individual states. They can suggest policies. That's it. If someone doesn't adhere to their policies they'll draft a paper saying "Orban bad". But they can't interfere directly.

    Member states benefit greatly from being in the EU. The UK might be a net contributor, but that doesn't mean they aren't benefiting from the EU.
     
  5. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,028
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    It won't make naive nationalistic ideals true though, no matter how much you like them. I should know, I used to be a nationalist until I got better.
     
    JokerCPoC and Revdarian like this.
  6. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,028
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    No, the world is broken. I'm saying how it should work not how it works. If it worked like that, there would be no problem.

    Said none, except you. Your strawman building skills need some work.

    The lack of a father figure is a contributing factor, nobody doubts that. That doesn't mean living on the poverty line isn't the main cause. Who is more likely to turn to drugs and crime? A child with a single parent on or below the poverty line, or a child with a single parent having their needs met?

    There absolutely is, just because you struggle doesn't mean you get employment on par with how much you struggled for it. There are so many unqualified individuals in high positions, and so many unemployed well educated people that you must live in a bubble to don't take notice. This rhetoric that anyone looking for work can find work matching their qualifications is used to be pushed by our communist government behind the iron curtain. With technological unemployment booming, this will be a more pressing issue every year.

    Your really didn't understand a single damn word from what I said did you?

    Aid doesn't mean throwing money at them and expect dictators and corrupt governments to magically get better. It is as much administrational aid as is financial. The trick is making them put aside nationalistic pride and actually accepting outside help. No matter which way you look at it nationalism is a hindrance. I'm not saying it's easy, or don't presume to know how it should be done, but it seems the only permanent solution.
    Yeah because you're afraid of the idea of people getting something for nothing, if I paid 2 cents for a loaf of bread they should too! Typical selfish thinking. You'd rather spend 10 billion on keeping them away from the pot, than to spend 1 billion on allowing them to feed.
     
  7. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Uh, citation needed. No, it doesn't make every single person turn into a criminal. Yes, you introduce poverty to pretty much any area in the world, the crime rate is going to go up. Yes, other factors influence crime rate also, but poverty is a huge one.

    This is a micro-level view on a macro-level situation. True, a lottery isn't a great analogy, since that implies it's pure chance whether you get a job or not. Musical chairs is much closer comparison. The most determined people in musical chairs are more likely to get a spot, but there's still plenty of luck involved. More importantly, there's not enough chairs for everyone, just most people. At any given time, the number of available jobs shrinks or grows. This number is frequently lower than the number of people who need full-time income.

    If that wasn't true, then wages would be pretty great across the board, since companies would have to compete with each other for people more heavily. Strikes would be almost unheard of, because conditions would be so good because companies would be desperate to retain workers. The concept of "struggling" to find work almost wouldn't exist, because there would be too many opportunities. Large events like The Great Depression wouldn't affect employment, because there would always be enough jobs. This flies against the face of observable reality.

    People who are desperate to find work have a higher probability of finding a job. That in no way proves there are enough jobs for everyone who needs one.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  8. Draxanoth

    Draxanoth Gawd

    Messages:
    565
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    No, it's not. The majority tend to be easily swayed and short sighted, which is why we are a republic, not a democracy. There are plenty of countries that are not republics you can move to though, should this one not be to your liking.

    It sounds like what you really want however is limited federal government, so the will of the people of Wyoming doesn't intrude on your daily life, because the federal government isn't supposed to intrude on your daily life. That's why the feds have a specific list of enumerated powers. Unless you're actually wanting to stamp out detractors by removing their balance on federal power, that should be a perfect compromise, and luckily we have grade school history books to teach us how it's designed to work.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  9. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    You have a hard time keeping up with your own words? You said not having a job creates bums or criminals. It's not a strawman to argue that criminality generally comes from somewhere other than the unemployment line.
    Poor or not, as I said earlier, does not matter. Not having a father or father-figure in the home increases the liklihood that a child will be a criminal by a lot. Does it increase it more for poor folks? Perhaps. There are so many variables to that equation I don't imagine there is any certainty one way or the other.

    Dude..... You make up shit like 'job lottery' when it's not random chance that gets people employed. Making good decisions and putting in effort matter. Knowing people helps too but I'd say that goes hand in hand with making good decisions. I'm sure there are a certain group of self-hating leftists that the idea of a 'job lottery' resonate with but I imagine that for most people who've ever had a job or who understand personal responsibility, that gibberish rings hollow.

    We disagree. Nationalism is not a hindrance. Nationalism is not relevant. Culture is. Giving somebody money and expecting them to do with it as *you* want them to do....won't work often, it likely won't work ever if they're of a different culture. Few countries have issue accepting help....I am not sure why you think that's the problem. I have not looked into it but I don't imagine many countries refuse aid. The real problem is that history has shown it changes little to nothing. You want to know what actually has improved shithole countries for more than a minute? Colonialism. Let that fact sink in.

    I am not a fan of direct financial foreign aid at all. Not one little bit. I certainly won't be disingenious and pretend the 'west' does not give a whole lot of aid that takes many forms though.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
    Mav451 likes this.
  10. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    No, it isn't. Being poor in the US isn't really *poverty* for most. I've seen poverty. I traveled through Central America for a year and have lived in China for nearly a decade. The homeless in the US have it better than many in poverty elsewhere. If poverty by itself causes crime...how does it work? A sliding scale? In this city anyone earning less than X is considered to be at risk of becoming a criminal but in a different city it's another number entirely? Perhaps 'poverty' isn't a root cause.

    Here's a bunch of stats.
    I know it's not a study but it's a start.
    Fatherless homes are what we should be looking at and focusing on.
    Ever wonder why all the trillions we've spent to combat poverty in the US accomplished exactly nothing? It's because marriage/family structure was never addressed. Instead, money was tossed at things.

    Never said there were enough jobs for everyone, only that those who want to work....will. You don't seem to disagree.

    The thing about working is that it always leads to something significantly better than not working will. It does not matter what kind of a job it is.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
    TheCommander and GoldenTiger like this.
  11. gtrguy

    gtrguy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Sounds like you're praying for bad things to happen to people... That doesn't seem very Christian of you (I assume Christian based on the "amen").
     
  12. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    You're making an argument that fatherlessness is ALSO a factor. None of what you posted shows poverty ISN'T. On the contrary, poverty makes a family unit harder to maintain, if not impossible economically and can INCREASE fatherlessness.

    Okay, I can see you're in the denying objective reality camp if you actually believe this. We can debate what the weather's going to be, but we can't have a discussion if I say the sky is blue and you say it's green. Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by double digit percentages for decades:

    https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...mericans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program
    https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/09/what-effect-does-social-security-have-on-poverty

    Calling that "exactly nothing" means you're denying empirical data. I can't have a discussion on those terms, that's not how my brain works. You win.
     
  13. YeuEmMaiMai

    YeuEmMaiMai [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,380
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    don't worry, that stuff will be here soon enough
     
  14. Laowai

    Laowai Gawd

    Messages:
    533
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Look at the poverty rates before our 'war' on it and today. Pretty f'n close to identical.
    And no, I'm making the argument that our 'poverty' isn't poverty in most cases. Pretty far from poverty actually. If you were making the argument that people who cannot feed themselves and who have nowhere to live and who lives in a country with zero social safety nets may turn to petty crime to survive....I'd find it difficult to argue with. What people will normally do, and what they'd do in survival mode are not the same. However, most cases of 'poverty' in the States are far removed from that and essentially poverty in name only. Therefore, poverty clearly cannot be the root cause it's portrayed to be by some.

    One guy: I have little money, no job, often no food, no stable housing....this is poverty. POVERTY CAUSES CRIME!
    Another guy: I have one cell phone, a TV, a car, a PC w/ internet, I live in an apartment....this is poverty. POVERTY CAUSES CRIME!
    First guy: ...

    Look, there is zero doubt that there is a high correlation between poverty and crime. If the poverty is actual poverty or perceived poverty due to wealth inequality or whatnot, it does not make a difference. Correlation does not equal causation though. You'll liikely want to say the same to me in a moment.
    There is also zero doubt that there is a high correlation between fatherlessness and crime. Even if we disagree on which plays a more important role, don't you think both issues should be addressed if possible? Especially since fighting against fatherlessness and the cultural/political issues that encourage it cannot be a negative under any scenario I can fathom.

    I see it as
    no dad -----> incomplete human --------> impaired decision making process ---------> crime and/or poverty
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  15. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:
    This is from the US Census:

    1536763441612.png

    The "war on poverty" policies started in 64. From that chart, the average poverty rate after it was implement was reduced by about a third. In other words, that's a difference of about 1 in 3 people not being at the poverty line anymore. About 10 years onward, it seems to fluctuate back and forth, but never coming close to previous highs. Conclusion I draw? The war on poverty permanently lowered the poverty rate, but wasn't enough to eliminate it much below 15%. My guess is if you got rid of it, the numbers would quickly shoot back up to previous highs again.

    and AGAIN

    Social security has had a MUCH more dramatic rate on poverty among the elderly:

    w10466.jpg

    I wasn't able to find a graph showing it from the 30s, but the before / after implementation of it was even more dramatic. Before Social Security was implemented, the poverty rate among the elderly was about 50%. In other words, that's over a 75% total drop in the poverty rate among the elderly since SS was implemented. So again, please clarify this statement:

    If we can't agree on objective reality, there's no point in discussing it further.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  16. Biznatch

    Biznatch 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,214
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009

    From the outside it looks like you are arguing with fox news..... No daddy causes crime, not poverty? Illegal imigration is only because we don't have a wall/border security, not because we've destabilized/bombed the shit out of a bunch of countries to bring 'freedom/democracy' (Read, replace leaders with more easily manipulated US friendly (corrupt) ones)...... It's a lot of words around bad fact-less arguments, so there's no point in wasting time arguing.

    I'm sure our corrupt politicians are salivating at the thought of being able to tax something like this in the US......
     
  17. BlueFireIce

    BlueFireIce [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,129
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
  18. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Immaterial. It does not matter that some people's votes seem to count more. States vote, with their electoral votes, not by the popular vote. The popular vote is used to determine how the States will use their Electoral Votes.

    The entire system was set up so that the Senate itself wasn't the voting power for the President because that was the initial plan. 50 States, 2 votes each. I would hope that what we have today sounds better than the initial plan to you. Is my hope misplaced?


    If you want to presume than be my guest, just don't presume to put your words in my mouth.

    As for the EU, I mostly don't give a damned what they do or how, as long as they aren't fucking with the USA and trying to push their bullshit on us. Not my country, they want to do stupid shit it's fine with me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  19. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Ask me, Social Security is much of the reason for the poverty.

    Look, I get it, the government decided that people won't save for themselves, which is stupid, people will do it, just not everyone. Personally I'm a Darwinist on this, and if a person won't look toward their own future than I don't care what happens to them. I have been paying into SS for 45 years. I have paid a lot into SS and I will probably not get it all back. That alone is reason enough not to like SS or see it as a net benefit for the country. All we are doing with SS is coddling people leaving the foolish some hope that SS will be enough for them and it's not. Never has been.
     
    Mav451 likes this.
  20. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,039
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I guess my feeling is this:

    States aren't sentient beings who suffer if policies hurt them, or benefit when policies work in their favor. People are. The states themselves are immaterial. Government policies should work in the favor of as many people as possible, and thus having some peoples votes carry a greater weight than others is an inherently unfair system.

    I understand why our founding fathers created the system this way. They were addressing the concerns of smaller states from being dominated by larger states. It was intended to persuade the smaller states to join the union in a time before we had some sort of national identity like we have today. They really should have had this expire after a few generations as that national identity was established..

    Having a minority of people who live in rural settings that don't reflect how some 85% of Americans live today have an outsized influence on our politics is just wrong. Sure, these minority populations need to be protected, just like every other minority, so their concerns aren't completely ignored by the majority, but that's why it takes significant super majorities to change the constitution.

    As more and more people move to cities on the coast and abandon their rural heritage, this system just becomes more and more unfair. At some point it has to change. Today only 15% of Americans live in rural areas. When do we mix things up and address this imbalance? Or should these low population interior states continue to have two senators and three electoral votes no matter how small their populations become? What if there is only one guy left in Wyoming some day. Does he still get three electoral votes?

    I'm just surprised large states like Texas and California haven't gotten pissed off already and split into 3-4 smaller states each in order to gain a more representative level of influence.
     
  21. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    But the point I am trying to get across is, because it's the States actually doing the voting, albeit based upon the voting by the State's citizens, (if the Electoral College follows), then the perception that there is a greater or lesser "weight" to individual's votes is a fiction. The individual is not voting at a national level, only at a voting district level. District's voting is tabulated and counted to determine how the State will vote at the national level.

    This is why I didn't call out your objection to gerrymandering which is an entirely valid risk/threat to our voting system.

    The founding fathers weren't concerned about "smaller states from being dominated by larger states" because the proposal for how we would elect a president was that the Senate only would vote giving equal representation to every state while ignoring that some states represented far greater numbers of the population. It was that concern, that the smaller states represented too few and unfairly represented states with larger populations, that the electoral college was proposed giving each State a number of electoral votes equal to their Senators + each member in the House, the House being population based. It was this change that was supposed to be more equatable by allowing each State their vote, but weighting the power of each State by their population.

    Because of the electoral college, a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Also, because of the electoral college and the population spread of the States, currently a candidate can win with just 13 States behind him. Both California and Texas are among those powerful 13 States. I don't see these 13 States wanting to have their voting power broken up. This power is why these States have so much power in Congress, on Select Committees, and why these States are courted by big business. These are not the States being shafted by the system. These are the States getting favor all the way around. I would think that it shows. They are also the richest States in the Union and their populations seem to be the richest, and perhaps happiest. I've never dug into it to see if that's true, but it shouldn't be hard to do.

    This is my understanding of the way things truly are. I do not claim that it is perfect or even the best that it can be.
     
  22. Merc1138

    Merc1138 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,086
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    You're right about that's how it is, and that's how it was intended. The whole point that people tend to forget while still managing to acknowledge that one state can be very different from another, is that this is the United STATES of America and the point of not using popular vote for everything is to avoid mob rule by a majority of people in certain regions who might otherwise make no consideration to the population in other areas/states. It's also why until a crappy constitutional amendment, US senators were not elected by general vote, but could be selected by state legislatures to represent the state rather than the population avoiding the issue of a wave of people moving from one locale to another and having more influence across multiple elections since changing a state's legislature would take longer than one general election.
     
    Mav451 likes this.
  23. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,039
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Is this really any better than the alternative though? We have replaced a perceived tyranny of the majority with a tyranny of the minority, which - by the way - is the very thing democracy was designed to avoid...
     
  24. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,392
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    If I was poor and didn't have a job I'd go to your house and take your stuff and pawn it. I need my video games and my pornhub subscription.

    ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgif-finder.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FOlaf-I-Dont-Give-A-Fuck.gif
    This has... problems. A job is not a job, as we obviously know cause working at McDonalds isn't the same thing as working as an IT at a company. Besides working at McDonalds to be a soul crushing boring job, it doesn't pay well either. It also doesn't give you any real usable experience unless you think applying for a good job with "would you like fries with that" is going to impress anyone.

    There's also the problem with scammers, as I'm dealing with them on a constant hour by hour moment of my life. Just going to pull a number out of my ass, but I figure half the jobs in the United States exist specifically to extract money and give nothing in return. People who work for these scam artists are doing so cause they need a job and they need the money asap. These are the people calling you 20 times a day to tell you that your computer has a virus, or Wells Fargo employee's who seem to religiously scam people, or mediums who talk to the dead and charge you money to do so.

    People will do desperate things for money.

    Wealth redistribution is the answer, just not one people like to hear. Unless you want to enact The Purge to remove all those poor people. At some point self driving cars will take away driving jobs, AI will take desk jobs, and kiosks will take away jobs from people who work at a register. Amazon will find a way to run their warehouse without employee's. Gotta have an answer for all these problems.
     
  25. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    I don't understand this. As population shifts and people move across the country, representation in the house changes to match. This effects the number of electoral votes a give State receives thus changing the power a given State has in the election. It's why Wyoming has only 3 electoral votes and California 55.

    What's more, the real argument I see is that because of this mechanic, as few as 13 states are the only ones that matter. Can anyone trace back over the decades and find an election in which the outcome hinged on Wyoming?

    In the 2016 election President Trump received 304 electoral votes, 34 more than what was required to win. In order of their electoral "weight" the following States are the ones that counted most for Trump;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

    36 Texas (2 electors voted for candidates other than Trump)
    29 Florida
    20 Pennsylvania
    18 Ohio
    16 Georgia
    16 Michigan
    15 North Carolina
    11 Arizona
    11 Indiana
    11 Tennessee
    10 Missouri
    10 Wisconsin
    9 Alabama
    9 South Carolina
    8 Louisiana
    7 Oklahoma
    6 Arkansas
    6 Colorado
    6 Kansas
    6 Iowa
    6 Mississippi
    5 West Virginia
    This is 271, the following States also voted for Trump, but you could say that they were so small, they didn't matter other than they denied others their vote.

    5 Nebraska
    4 Idaho
    3 Montana
    3 Wyoming
    3 North Dakota
    3 South Dakota
    3 Hawaii

    And Trump picked up one rouge Electoral vote from Maine although the State went Blue.

    25 more votes

    Now maybe my math is off somewhere but for some reason the list above only counts for 296 total votes, supposed to be 5 more somewhere but I can't spot it. But I hope this explains what I am saying, that in effect the votes of seven States didn't even count. Of course this is the case almost every election.
     
  26. mlcarson

    mlcarson Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    As far as the electoral college is concerned, it's mostly screwed up because of how the states themselves have setup the rules. Too many states have went to a winner-take-all model -- I think Nebraska and Maine are the only states that don't. That means my vote is essentially worthless here in California as a Republican; the electoral votes will always go to the Democrat candidate. California has made things worse by not even giving Republicans a chance to vote in Senate elections; only the top 2 candidates with the most votes in the primary (the Democrat candidates) are listed on the general election ballot. The concerns of those outside the major rural areas are basically ignored in this state. This is why state votes should not be simple votes but based on districts that should represent everybody. If anything, the rural areas need more representation because every district can still be dominated by a geographically small urban area. You can see the same struggles in the EU and Brexit -- the politics typically get dominated by the large urban areas but when the entire population got to vote for Brexit -- the rural population actually showed up and shocked those in London. I think the EU eventually breaks up because those running it certain don't represent the values of all of the members.

     
  27. Merc1138

    Merc1138 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,086
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    What tyranny? The US is a two party system, presidents from both parties have been regularly back and forth for decades, control of the national congress has been back and forth for decades. In the meanwhile, the constitution and subsequently the bill of rights has been enforced many times against various states of either "color" to ensure that people still have their rights no matter what bug their particular state has gotten up their butt.

    So what "tyranny" are you referring to? It's not as if the federal government is a one party system like the California government has effectively been for almost 30 years. We had a black democrat president who got re-elected, where the hell is the "tyranny"? Now if you were specifically referring to the TSA, the NSA, etc. then sure, but those don't really have anything to do with the voting public at all since they're non-elected bureaucracies.

    Also, as people have pointed out a couple of times now in this thread, about 1/4 of the states account for more than 50% of the electoral votes anyway, and of those states there are representatives from both national parties in power and people from all walks of life. Hell, here in California unless I vote for the state party, it doesn't matter who I vote for because it's irrelevant.

    BTW, did you know that it's up to the states to decide if the electoral votes are "winner take all" or representative by district or similar? Seems not. The funny part about that is, if CAs electoral votes were representational, the 1/3 or so that would go red would likely outweigh the blue votes in a state like TX, possibly the same for NY as well.

    Apparently it really isn't obvious, but the system was intentionally setup to cause gridlock, prevent mob rule, and not allow just rapidly passing legislation constantly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019
  28. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    The answer is in front of your face, it's the same answer that has always existed. People will do what they have to do. Nothing stops people from starting new businesses for themselves, and others. Nothing but themselves.

    Not even that crippled up genius in a wheelchair predicted that people would stream themselves playing games on the internet and make money doing it. There are several companies starting up over the last couple of decades where people are recreating "lost trades". Custom craftsmen making straight razors and real leather belts and other goods because ..... despite being more costly, they're really nice products. Disposable has become just cheap, as cheap as cheap can get. Quality starts becoming the new frugal choice. People are using hydroponics to grow vegetables to sell at local markets, it must be having an impact because now there are Super Markets that are trying out growing their own right in the store.



    https://www.fastcompany.com/3058155/at-this-supermarket-the-produce-section-grows-its-own-produce\
     
  29. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Texas had two electors that voted against the State's "red outcome". Alaska had one and Washington State had four. Other States can do the same although they did not.

    The secret to fixing California's problem .... is to leave California (y)

    Enough leave and they lose representation in the House and Electoral votes as well.
     
  30. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Can't speak to the TSA as that is Homeland Security. But the NSA is DoD, and that is what it is for very good reasons.

    NSA is connect to the DOD bone, the DoD bone's connected to the Joint Cheif's bone, the Joint Cheif's bone's connected to the President's bone .... so hear the word .....

    Yea I'm getting stupid, it's the end of the day .... sue me :sleep:
     
  31. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Not everyone is elected, Fireman and Police by your logic should be elected, when in reality they are not elected in the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK, or in the EU. I call that BS as a fellow American, though I at least know My ancestry as someone of French, English, and quite possibly Irish ancestry, My family lived in Ireland from 1620-1820 at the Invitation of King James the 1st of England, I also know that the UK is composed of more than just England, so yes I have immigrant ancestors, My oldest known family member was born in Wexford Ireland in 1770.
     
  32. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Zilch, Nada, Zero, Goose Egg, and Void. ;)
     
    Liver likes this.
  33. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    EU States are Countries with Standing Militaries, States in the US have no standing Militaries and the National Guard does not count since States in the US are not Countries.
     
  34. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    That would be all 50, they are called The National Guard. Maybe I am taking the term "standing" a little too liberally for you, but they all have a core Active Duty Contingent that goes to work in uniform at least 5 days a week on average. That core is ready to respond and call up the rest on order of the Governor or upon Activation by the US DoD.

    But perhaps you don't think that counts.
     
  35. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    The US Militaries primary loyalty is to the US Constitution, not to a President.
     
  36. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Not true, see above.
     
  37. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    The US States don't have individual militaries, National Guard troops can be Federalized in a heartbeat.
     
    Liver likes this.
  38. JokerCPoC

    JokerCPoC Gawd

    Messages:
    629
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    I was in the US Army, I'm speaking from Experience, those in the US Military take an Oath to the US Constitution, not to a POTUS.

    You are thinking of taking an Oath to a Liter, like Hitler had the German Military do, in the US that is not done.
     
  39. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    You don't fully get that whole "Command and Chief" thing do you?

    Yes, I swore an oath to defend the constitution way back in 1981, and re-affirmed that oath several times over my military career. But in every Army building that I ever walked into that had offices for people in positions of Command, there were pictures of every Commanding Officer in that chain of command and every single collect ended with the President of the United States of America.

    Do you think that was just for show?
     
  40. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,504
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    And in that same oath you swore to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed above you and that goes all the way to the Commander and Chief, POTUS.

    Or did you forget that part of your oath.
    https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

    And also, to remind you, the President also swore to uphold the Constitution as well.

    https://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html

    It's not an either or thing brother.

    Am I misunderstanding you in some way? Did I miss something key to the conversation earlier?

    OH, and yea, I retired in '98, got a little experience myself. And my dick is bigger too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2019