Forum Replies Created
I still don’t see how these voting articles you post imply widespread voting fraud. Are these discrepancies new to the republic? (I don’t think so.). Google Greg Palast and voting and you’ll see some articles on large scale voter suppression.
If a government thinks that voting by mail is a threat to democracy, so be it. But here’s the general rule for modern national elections: Republicans want a lower voter turnout and Democrats want a higher turnout. In Colorado, there are drop boxes for ballots and plenty of chances to vote early. Do Republicans in swing states push these alternatives instead of mail? Of course not.
I’d also love to hear Professor Eastman’s views on why Ted Cruz, born in Canada, should be eligible to run for President.
Sure, the SCOTUS has never ruled that a person born in the USA is automatically a natural born citizen. But the SCOTUS will never rule the opposite, either.
It’s a creative argument, though. Now one could ask what is “subject to the jurisdiction of.” If you are here legally, citizen or otherwise, you’re submitting to US laws.
Nice for the news cycle for a couple of days.
The question to ask is whether one type of voting in less reliable than another. Mail in voting works in Colorado. And Utah. And other places. I will give you that NYC is very corrupt, although the article is a bit thin on details. Not sure that it’s the first of many incidents. Voting fraud stories are split between Dems and Republicans (e.g. North Carolina district cited in the article). Here, it’s also a primary versus a general.
Trump doesn’t want mail in voting to lower the vote count. It’s not more complicated than that. Kunstler likes to bring up the subject for his QAnon membership application.
No, Mr. Kunstler, Mr. Barr is actually incorrect when he avers that an election by mail-in ballots is an invitation to fraud. Elections in Colorado (and Washington state, to name another) have been mail-in for years. Mr. Kunstler is so obsessed with Antifa/BLM that he is getting a little sloppy. He doesn’t like allegations without evidence, so the pot is calling the kettle black here.
When we refer to history–to date–it’s been to a poorer time. Has always been. But in 20-30 years it won’t be. And all of these issues won’t matter at all.
Ben Garrison’s cartoon is silly, Ilargi. You know, although he doesn’t, that we are in a world of competing socialisms. What’s the alternative? Austerity? You don’t like that, either.
There are the capitalist true believers out there. Ok, but just think how many people a pure capitalism will help in a system with declining surplus energy. Not many at all.
Since it is improper for a 16 year old to rail against the establishment, I as a 53 year old will do it instead.
I use these dates for family reasons. When my grandfather was born in May 1912, CO2 was at about 302 ppm. When my father was three months ago in May 1939, CO2 was about 312 ppm. When I was six months old in May 1966, 322 ppm. In May 1993, CO2 up to 356 ppm. In May 2020, about 417-18 ppm. We’re in a heap of trouble, Dr. D’s blandishments notwithstanding.
And Dr D, it is NOT snowing in Denver today, it is about 60F. Moreover, it has snowed — measurably– as early as the first week in September. Although you won’t do it, look at http://www.climatereanalyzer.org. And start including some links to your lengthy comments.
Liberals redistributing? They got nothing compared to the Federal Reserve.
Are you familiar with the concept of net energy/EROEI? Sunlight is sunlight; fossil fuels are concentrated, ancient sunlight. The sun is abundant, for sure. But is it cheap? Not if you want to live in an industrial economy.
You’re right, the Democratic plan stinks. I also have Bernie and Tulsi at the top of my list. But, incompetent as the Dems are, I don’t want a Trump running a society that will be fighting over scraps. He is about the worst person you can imagine being at the helm in a contracting society.
In the end, the popular vote for D and R in 2020 won’t vary by more than 2-3%.
If I may, I want to provide a diversion from the popular meme that Trump is executing brilliant strategy with every move. Here’s a man who lost the popular vote by a couple of million in 2016 (if you dispute that, please don’t confuse voter registration fraud with voter fraud). To roll to an easy victory in 2020, he’d have to either increase turnout among the MAGA hat wearers or change a lot of people’s minds to his POV. The former is certainly possible, although the Evangelicals were already reliable in 2016. That latter, in my opinion, is nearly impossible. Maybe there are a silent cohort of 2016 Clinton voters who are getting on the Donny train, who knows?
One more thing. I am a definite “Republicans suck, Democrats suck” type of voter. But I think Orange Julius is a little bit much (ahem, racist) and will vote, with nose held, for whomever the Democrats put up next year. Think I am the only one?
You can laugh at this statement in November 2020: Trump won’t win any state that he didn’t win in 2016 (I think he won 30 of 51 jurisdictions that have electoral votes.). If unemployment–the official U3 rate–rises to 4.0%, he won’t win at all.
Most people, despite the scandals and the fierce rhetoric, don’t change their minds from election to election. One side will have a better turnout and will win. It’s that simple.
The problem is that no mainstream pundit has offered a way to prosper with debt growing more slowly (much less not at all) than income. Thus, there is no alternative to this nonsense because debt is a sine qua non of the system.
IMO, there are alternatives, left and right versions, but they all would involve fewer cars, fewer plane trips, etc. When everyone believes in infinite growth on a finite planet, being where we are is no surprise.
A return to low interest rates? The 10 year UST was 2.12% yesterday. But I know, lower short term rates will fix everything. The Fed keeps painting as it moves to the corner of the room.
If unemployment is 6% by October 2020 none of this will matter
In other news, DOJ says Russians hacked voting in all 50 states in 2016. If that’s true, the Russians have to be the stupidest people on the planet (it’s not true).
I’d also tell Trump that unemployment at 4% means you’re re-elected and increasing unemployment means you’re not. This never ceasing business will have little effect on your political future. So go after your enemies if you want.
(1) CO2 in 1965, the year I was born about 325 ppm. Today 410+ ppm and rising more quickly than it did 53 years ago.
(2) Nuclear is fine, but do remember that thorium is not fissile. Maybe the EROEI won’t be as good as you imagine.
Dr D, you may want to look at http://www.climatereanalyzer.org. 0.8 degrees C above the 1979-2000 average yesterday. Cherry picking does not become you.
This low inflation and globalization schtick is tiresome. Interest rates are low because modern industrial society cannot abide by higher interest rates. I will stop throwing in my two cents from the peanut gallery when the 10Y UST is above 3% for six months. I think I will be yapping for a long time Inflation and low interest rates can exist simultaneously for a long time. It’s called collapse.
I am a vegetarian and agree with John Day’s comments. You are describing a system, though, that cannot support 7.5 billion people. How many? Depends on your locality–what’s your bioregion? In the next world, we eat what we can, we need the calories. In the world where you eat from your bioregion, it will be difficult for people in most regions to be vegetarian, much less vegan.
To get to your system, don’t be too hard on the vegetarians. The industrial system is making your future cow-based one more difficult by the day. The ultimate human state may be hunter gatherer in bioregions throughout the world if the industrial system doesn’t destroy everything first. And when all is said and done, meat consumption per capita will probably be less for most developed countries’ inhabitants than it is today and there won’t be many vegetarians.
Not recently, reality
The machines do not pay for themselves. To preserve industrial civilization, interest rates cannot rise much. I will say it again: the 10Y UST cannot go over 3% for more than six months. Moreover, the interest rate needed will slowly decrease over time. Perhaps the markets will decide the rate should be lower than currently. And when that happens, the deflation predicted by TAE becomes recently. After that,, industrial civilization ends soon enough.
Perception is everything in politics, isn’t it? Maybe the GOP will exceed expectations because unemployment has gone from 4.9% to 3.7% since January 2017 and wages have risen about 0.5% in the same time period. Tax cuts provide good sugar highs. But for long term investment? Doubt it.
When I listen to Scott Adams, I get the sense that he’s just trying to be provocative.
Actually poverty rates came down in the USA rapidly in the 1960s. But then US peak oil and corporate globalization followed. Just a guess, but without public assistance, poverty rates would be much higher and there would be no proclaimed present boom.
I wouldn’t convict Kavanaugh in a criminal court. But that was one lousy interview. But for some he will save the babies and that’s all you need.
Where did this “neutral rate” come from anyway? If M1/M2//M3 are rising faster than GDP, then institutions are still lending. Let’s see if the 10 year UST goes over 3% today.
Infinite debt is okay if you have infinite net energy. Most people believe in both so we must be okay.
Dr D, I find you amusing on this one but indeed we’ll see. I think most people also believe infinite CO2 in the atmosphere is also possible and infinite acidification of the oceans is no sweat.
If you want to halt the perfidy of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc., consider the obstacles. An advocate would have to get the SCOTUS to find that these companies are state actors. There is some precedent for that, but I bet you the current court would rule 8-1 or 9-0 that these companies are not state actors and, thus, the First Amendment does not apply. The security state’s tentacles are everywhere.
Why is one cubic km important? Would two be too much?
Just a few points,
“Welfare” may include a child receiving Social Security benefits for a deceased (or retired or disabled) parent. It is basically an insurance policy Social Security gives you. We could mandate getting your own damn insurance policy, true enough.
If you have Medicaid, the sky’s the limit potentially. If you want to be very sick, you will receive a lot of benefits, but it’s not really useful to count that in determining how the welfare recipient has it made. Now if a person gets Social Security Disability because she has a sufficient work record, she could pull down more than $1,500/month. If she lived alone, she wouldn’t get food stamps (SNAP). If she has a child or two, maybe. For kicks, check this out: http://gapmap.org/calculator/.
If she has been lazy all her life and doesn’t have a sufficient work record, she could apply for SSI. If she prevails on her claim, it’s $750 per month. But to get it, she cannot have more than $2000 in countable resources (including everything in the bank). Doesn’t qualify for SSI? TANF (for those with children) is even stingier.
There’s also subsidized housing. You get to pay 30% of your income for rent. In a large American city, that could save you $10,000/year or more.
The “up to $35,000” won’t apply to many, possibly the Reagan welfare queen driving around in a new Cadillac.
It is certainly true that without government subsidies having a child is prohibitively expensive. Maybe we should not give more to anyone who has a child. Of course, then we’d have to pay for an alternative. Or watch children suffer. Sterilizing people is another option.
It is understandably very painful to see your money go to the undeserving. But seems to be that some of these “welfare” articles are exaggerating to express that pain.
You think the B.S. is bad with McCain? Wait until Henry Kissinger dies.
Stocks are high and the 10 year is below 3%. It’s the best of all possible worlds! Dr. Pangloss would be proud.
I get it. You meant GDP, the most important measurement there is.
Iran is a lot bigger than Maryland in both area and population.
Jerome Powell’s Fed keeps tightening but the 10 year US Treasury doesn’t want to stay over 3%. Does anyone see a scenario in which it stays over that mark for the long term? I mean, the USA is already so prosperous that prosperity doesn’t do the trick.
I don’t mind austerity so much but it has to start at the top