GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[John]

A question if I may, how come Mexico builds a wall on its southern border with Guatemala to keep out illegal immigrants and not a word is spoken, Trump say he intends to do the same to Americas southern border and the worlds in an up roar, I cant figure that one out.
and as a point of interest, get caught as an illegal immigrant in Mexico and see how your treated.

kaspa

 

[Jac Mac]

Was just looking into that John, it would appear that Mexico paid for it as well. When I think about here in NZ there is a paragraph in the 'fencing act' that says you should fence to keep your neighbours stock out of your property working on the assumption that you would naturally want to keep your own stock in. Works fine where neighbours have similar land use etc until you get a neighbour with alternative activity or a 'townie' that wants a picket fence.

Whats that got to do with the USA / Mexican border.... Mexico obviously wanted to stop those from Guatemala & paid for their own wall.... Guess USA needs to pay for this Trump deal if you want a wall!

 

[Rod]

If California were taken out of the equation, Trump won the popular vote.

That makes no sense on two levels.

One, take any state that Trump won, by a large or small margin, out of the equation and Clinton's popular vote win would have been even larger. Two, it's a popular vote, one person, one vote. In terms of the popular vote, it doesn't matter where you live.

Only a system developed by slave owners in the 1700's, when they didn't have planes, trains and automobiles, where people couldn't move around quite as adeptly, would it matter. We're a much more transient society than 200+ years ago.

 

[John]

Hi Jac, well it seems the further you dig the more interesting the WALL becomes, seems like the America Mexico border is already partially fenced, and has been for some time.

This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like

kaspa

 

[Jac Mac]

Gets even more interesting when other sites suggest that there is no real wall between mexico/guatemala and a lot of the border is either rivers or a cleared strip of land.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

That makes no sense on two levels.

One, take any state that Trump won, by a large or small margin, out of the equation and Clinton's popular vote win would have been even larger. Two, it's a popular vote, one person, one vote. In terms of the popular vote, it doesn't matter where you live.

Only a system developed by slave owners in the 1700's, when they didn't have planes, trains and automobiles, where people couldn't move around quite as adeptly, would it matter. We're a much more transient society than 200+ years ago.

The Nationwide popular vote was a 2.8 million difference, the Ca vote was a 3.4 million difference. What do you keep harping on the one person one vote thing for? Hillary lost, get over it.

 

[Larry L.]

That makes no sense on two levels.

One, take any state that Trump won, by a large or small margin, out of the equation and Clinton's popular vote win would have been even larger. Two, it's a popular vote, one person, one vote. In terms of the popular vote, it doesn't matter where you live.

Only a system developed by slave owners in the 1700's, when they didn't have planes, trains and automobiles, where people couldn't move around quite as adeptly, would it matter. We're a much more transient society than 200+ years ago.

Bottom line in a nutshell: Billary was elected president of California (surprise, surprise)...and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country.

Look at the red/blue map and then try to convince us that Trump lost:

 

[Steve]

That's another crock of S.

The S&P 500 is up 6% since the election, so besides the jobs report, the holiday season and the last 8 years of Obama/Fed/etc. repairing the economy after the recession, we're giving Trump 100% of the credit for the 6% increase? Come on. There's absolutely no way to quantify what portion is attributable to Trump. The S&P 500 might have been up 10% if Clinton was elected, we'll never know.

We do know that Trump being elected has moved the "Doomsday Clock" a few ticks closer to imminent disaster. :laugh:

Rod, that's not accurate. Changes in the markets reflect a foreshadowing or expectation of future events in business (which is one of the reasons they're so damn fickle, because who really knows the future), they are not a reflection of past events (i.e. the last 8 years under Obama). I'm not saying I believe they're accurately predicting the future nor do we know what they'd do under HC. It's my guess that Wall Street sees a relaxation of govt regulation and, therefore, a better environment for business growth.

As an example: I have 2 friends who own 2 small businesses. They have somewhere around 20-30 employees I believe. Their businesses are booming and they'd like to expand. They have poured most of their personal resources into these businesses in the last 5 years to foster their growth (and, as a result, a few of their employees actually make more than they do) in the anticipation of the windfall of future growth. They are, however, hesitant to grow too quickly. Once they get past 50 employees they are mandated to either offer health insurance or pay a heavy tax penalty. In addition, once they get that big, they'll be in a higher state and federal income tax bracket. In effect, if they get to 50-60 employees, they'll be punished for that growth and make far less (all the while taking on more risk and debt). So.....they're reigning in their growth for now. They think it's better to wait until they see so much future potential that they can make a bigger jump and double the size of their business.

Trouble is, that day may not come if they don't grow incrementally now. So, regulation in this instance is squelching economic growth right down my street. The markets believe, under this administration, there will be less of this. We'll see.

 

[Steve]

Thought I did, Al...in exactly those words:



As for a surprise...no, it was more than surprising, it was stunning in light of the huge disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college decision.

We now have the technology to function like a true democracy (yeah...I've been reminded we are a Republic...doesn't make it right in this day and age when we don't need to function like a Republic needed to back when the EC was developed).

Stop whining, though? Not yet, but I will when Trump stops giving me reasons to whine. The right certainly whined about the prior POTUS for 8 years, no reason the center and the left can't whine about the current POTUS for 4 (heaven help us if we re-elect him for 4 more).

Truth be told, though...I'd much rather he stop giving us reason to whine. (yeah...I know...good luck on that one, right?)

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, the right certainly whined a lot about Obama. I don't think we disputed whether or not he won or the legitimacy of it (excepting a few Birther nut jobs). You need to stop perseverating on the electoral college. It's here and unlikely going to change. The results of the popular vote would have been dramatically different without the results of NYC, LA, and San Francisco. Those cities have benefitted much from the economic policies of the last decade. Some would say at the expense of the "flyover" country that the media would like to ignore. Get over it and come back in 4 years with a better candidate.

 

[Mike]

GT40s paddock explained...

 

[Jack]

Exactly Mike!

 

[Rod]

The Nationwide popular vote was a 2.8 million difference, the Ca vote was a 3.4 million difference. What do you keep harping on the one person one vote thing for? Hillary lost, get over it.

You're the one who mentioned deducting states, not me. If you're deducting CA from Clinton's popular vote total, then we can play the game of deducting votes from states that Trump won. It's nonsensical in terms of the popular vote.

And as for getting over it, why? The Republicans bitched and moaned about Obama for 8 years, why deny me the opportunity to bitch and moan about Trump for 4 years? :thumbsdown: :laugh:

 

[Rod]

Bottom line in a nutshell: Billary was elected president of California (surprise, surprise)...and Trump was elected president of the rest of the country.

Look at the red/blue map and then try to convince us that Trump lost:

Yes, we've seen the map before. And the map shows us that the major population centers gave Clinton a win by 3,000,000 votes. Most of the country is just land.

 

[Rod]

Rod, that's not accurate. Changes in the markets reflect a foreshadowing or expectation of future events in business (which is one of the reasons they're so damn fickle, because who really knows the future), they are not a reflection of past events (i.e. the last 8 years under Obama). I'm not saying I believe they're accurately predicting the future nor do we know what they'd do under HC. It's my guess that Wall Street sees a relaxation of govt regulation and, therefore, a better environment for business growth.

As an example: I have 2 friends who own 2 small businesses. They have somewhere around 20-30 employees I believe. Their businesses are booming and they'd like to expand. They have poured most of their personal resources into these businesses in the last 5 years to foster their growth (and, as a result, a few of their employees actually make more than they do) in the anticipation of the windfall of future growth. They are, however, hesitant to grow too quickly. Once they get past 50 employees they are mandated to either offer health insurance or pay a heavy tax penalty. In addition, once they get that big, they'll be in a higher state and federal income tax bracket. In effect, if they get to 50-60 employees, they'll be punished for that growth and make far less (all the while taking on more risk and debt). So.....they're reigning in their growth for now. They think it's better to wait until they see so much future potential that they can make a bigger jump and double the size of their business.

Trouble is, that day may not come if they don't grow incrementally now. So, regulation in this instance is squelching economic growth right down my street. The markets believe, under this administration, there will be less of this. We'll see.

Disagree. I have money, like most/all of you, in the market. Even before the market after the election, my portfolio had risen significantly as did the S&P 500 one year prior. Without checking the stats, I'd bet 15-20% in the year or years (annualized) prior to the election.

So, we can't really quantify the difference between a Trump win versus a Clinton win. Clinton was actually accused of cozying up to Wall Street from the primaries to the general election with her speeches and such.

 

[Rod]

Rod, that's not accurate.

Picking a 5-year chart off Yahoo, the last 5 years, the S&P 500 is up 71%. :thumbsup:

Is the last 6% due to Trump's election? Dunno.

What I do know, is that 2-months a just a snapshot in time. Let's wait for a much larger sample size. I'm willing to say "thank you" to our new President, if and when, I see further positive results to my portfolio.

 

[Larry L.]

Yes, we've seen the map before. And the map shows us that the major population centers gave Clinton a win by 3,000,000 votes. Most of the country is just land.

Which is exactly what the E.C. was created to offset.

That "land" represents individual states...as in individual countries...individual 'nations'. (You know, like the "state" of Israel.) That's what our 50 states ARE - individual 'nations' that banded together to form the U.S. The Founders recognized that reality and created the Electoral College so that each member 'nation', as much as possible anyway, would have a more-or-less co-equal say in who was elected prez over the entire union...as opposed to, say, 3 or 4 states with enormous populations being able to dictate the outcome of presidential elections over the rest of the states in the union via a strict "popular vote". The 2016 election perfectly demonstrated how well the 'College does exactly that.

The Founders were obviously a very savvy group.

 

[Rod]

Which is exactly what the E.C. was created to offset.

That "land" represents individual states...as in individual countries...individual 'nations'. (You know, like the "state" of Israel.) That's what our 50 states ARE - individual 'nations' that banded together to form the U.S. The Founders recognized that reality and created the Electoral College so that each member 'nation', as much as possible anyway, would have a more-or-less co-equal say in who was elected prez over the entire union...as opposed to, say, 3 or 4 states with enormous populations being able to dictate the outcome of presidential elections over the rest of the states in the union via a strict "popular vote". The 2016 election perfectly demonstrated how well the 'College does exactly that.

The Founders were obviously a very savvy group.

Nope. Only a few states matter. States like TX, OK, TN, CA, MA, NY, etc. are ignored. The constitution was written long ago when the founders were slave owners. Society is different 200 years later and I'm firm in my belief that every vote should count. Every other election is popular vote. The presidency too. You'll never persuade me to think otherwise.

 

[Larry L.]

Every other election is popular vote.

Every other election is by "popular vote" because they only effect residents of individual states...not the whole country.

I'm firm in my belief that every vote should count.

Every vote does count...just not the way you'd prefer.

You'll never persuade me to think otherwise.

You might also choose to think you own my house. 'Wouldn't change reality there either, would it, Rod. ;-)


One more time: Let's just say the total population of Texas constitutes 50.1% of the entire U.S. population...and everyone therein votes for presidential candidate "A". Let's just say everyone else in the other 49 states votes for presidential candidate "B". Without the E.C., the "popular vote" (one person, one vote no matter where they live) would dictate that Texas alone says candidate "A" will govern the whole country...when in fact the vote count was actually 49 states to 1 for candidate "B". As a resident of Cali, you'd be just fine with that, right?

If you can't foresee the trainload of issues that would be created by dumping the E.C. in favor of the popular vote, I'm afraid there's no hope for you.

Like it or not...agree with it or not...The Founders obviously were much smarter than either of us.
:chug:

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Southern slave owners where Democrats, Lincoln was a Republican. Whether written long ago or not, the Constitution is still a relevant document. The ability to introduce amendments keeps it current. I find it amusing that you voted for a ill tempered, arrogant, treasonous candidate strickly on gender as did the rest of the uniformed electorate who voted the last time on color, with first as a reason.

Nope. Only a few states matter. States like TX, OK, TN, CA, MA, NY, etc. are ignored. The constitution was written long ago when the founders were slave owners. Society is different 200 years later and I'm firm in my belief that every vote should count. Every other election is popular vote. The presidency too. You'll never persuade me to think otherwise.

 

[Rod]

Every other election is by "popular vote" because they only effect residents of individual states...not the whole country.




Every vote does count...just not the way you'd prefer.




You might also choose to think you own my house. 'Wouldn't change reality there either, would it, Rod. ;-)


One more time: Let's just say the total population of Texas constitutes 50.1% of the entire U.S. population...and everyone therein votes for presidential candidate "A". Let's just say everyone else in the other 49 states votes for presidential candidate "B". Without the E.C., the "popular vote" (one person, one vote no matter where they live) would dictate that Texas alone says candidate "A" will govern the whole country...when in fact the vote count was actually 49 states to 1 for candidate "B". As a resident of Cali, you'd be just fine with that, right?

If you can't foresee the trainload of issues that would be created by dumping the E.C. in favor of the popular vote, I'm afraid there's no hope for you.

Like it or not...agree with it or not...The Founders obviously were much smarter than either of us.
:chug:

Sorry, I don't buy that logic. Statewide citywide contests count in my book. Why not run an state, county or city electoral college for governor, senators, mayors, representives? All popular vote and not broken into micro electoral colleges.

One citizen one vote. If 50% of the population lives in Texas, then it's still one citizen one vote. It has nothing to do with the national budget and receiving funds from Washington DC.

You seem to buy this belief that the founders were smart or brilliant. Just regular citizens to me. I don't know if they were smart or a bunch of dumbasses. They obviously owned people and beat them, sometimes to death, so that in my book was pure idiocy. You can buy 100% of everything in the Bible, but some of what is written there is irrelevant IMO in 2017. Same for the Constitution.