Election Thread 2016

[Cheebs]

I can show you 1,000 programs that could be cut so people's IDs can be free. Although the right answer is to only let those that pay taxes vote. Then you solve several problems all at once.

When you're getting something for nothing, you shouldn't get to be picky.

Make IDs free first, then we'll talk.
Ammend the Constitution first so it actually says you have to pay taxes to vote, then we'll talk.

As it stands, these laws block a fundamental Constitutional right.

[Frogacuda]

Although the right answer is to only let those that pay taxes vote.

Let's compromise. 3/5 of a vote.

P.S. Everyone pays taxes, federal income tax is not the only tax out there. And, in fact, didn't even exist as a permanent part of our tax structure at all until like the early 1900s.

[Cheebs]

How could they possibly know (that the number of fraudulent votes is low)? At my precinct, you can walk in, give them a name, and as long as that person hadn't already been there that day, you can vote under the name. That seems like a completely ridiculous process for something of this importance.

You've got it backwards. You are right that we don't know exactly how many fraudulent votes were cast and never found. But the burden of proof is on the group that wants to change things. States say fraud is a problem. OK, show us that it is a problem. You give us the numbers. Don't just throw up voting barriers on a hunch and then turn around and demand proof that it was not needed.

Backwards.

[Anthony]

And then they lied to sell the securities, AND shorted them on the other side - in fact, judging by the performance of the biggest player in that scam (Goldman Sachs), that is where the real money was made. Again, this wasn't the government's doing. If anything, I'd say the biggest incompetents in this whole mess wasn't really F&F but the ratings agencies. If this stuff was rated and priced correctly then it wouldn't have happened.

Whom do you think pays the rating companies? That was exactly the problem my friend who works for S&P was telling me. Being the realistic rating company while everyone else is bubbly and optimistic gets you less business.

Government incentives in housing sucks. But that is because it is relatively baseless as to why we think it is an improvement, some shit about the American dream is owning a house. But that doesn't mean that the all Government incentives suck, as long as there is a good basis as to why the individual is incapable of making the logical decision which both helps himself and the public at large to the greatest degree long term, it can be very useful. Ask any modern day economist, and they will say the big thing in the field in general is that people are illogical. They make poor decisions, and sometimes those poor decisions are predictable and preventable.

[Bojack]

That's absolutely ridiculous and would be yet another path to noncompetitiveness in the global market. Or should we break Ford and GM up and then watch Toyota and Honda crush all the pieces like bugs?

Um, considering both Ford, GM, and Chrysler were at one time a combination of Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Plymouth, Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler and a few other nameplates that were all independent in the past that were all bought up, merged, mismanaged like hell and all pushed to the cliff's edge of extinction................. or entirely gone. I would say you picked a piss, very very, piss poor example to argue your case. Along the way they destroyed Kaiser, Nash, Packard, AMC and a good handful that lasted after the WWII so basically, allowing them to merge allowed them to crush all smaller competition and make the impact of their mismanagement exponentially larger. Then in the 70's America was left with an industry that was able to get away with selling total horseshit cars because you got your car from one of three companies and they all largely sucked. So the end result of all the merging was a net minus for America.

But please tell me how the big three being the big three kept them from getting fucked by Japan? If anything their size limited their competitiveness because they were unable to structurally adapt in a convenient manner against the Japanese. It also meant that the Jp cars only had to be better than a few basically identical cars all offering the same general shittiness. I could go on but whatevs.

Although the right answer is to only let those that pay taxes vote. Then you solve several problems all at once.

The only way this works is if laws don't apply to those who are paying no taxes. If the laws will affect them they get a say so in the law's creation. We don't live in a dictatorship. Also, what if some one pays at least 1 penny in taxes? Do they get a say then? Do bums who buy beer and pay beer tax get to vote (regardless of how they got the beer money)? Next to no one pays no taxes in the first place.

[Drewbacca]

GM and Chrysler are still having big money issues, too.

[Diff-chan]

Valid citizens need to get themselves some ID, and then it wouldn't have any negative impact. If you can get to the polling place, you can get to the DMV to get an ID card.

I don't agree with this. What if some tinfoil hat crazies don't want to get an ID? Driving isn't a constitutional right; people can make the choice not to drive or get a credit card but they still retain the right to vote.

If there was significant evidence of the type of polling booth fraud that the right crows about, I would say that putting in restrictions of some sort are reasonable. But there isn't.

[Bojack]

GM and Chrysler are still having big money issues, too.

Are they???

[Yoshi]

Um, considering both Ford, GM, and Chrysler were at one time a combination of Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Plymouth, Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler and a few other nameplates that were all independent in the past that were all bought up, merged, mismanaged like hell and all pushed to the cliff's edge of extinction................. or entirely gone. I would say you picked a piss, very very, piss poor example to argue your case. Along the way they destroyed Kaiser, Nash, Packard, AMC and a good handful that lasted after the WWII so basically, allowing them to merge allowed them to crush all smaller competition and make the impact of their mismanagement exponentially larger. Then in the 70's America was left with an industry that was able to get away with selling total horseshit cars because you got your car from one of three companies and they all largely sucked. So the end result of all the merging was a net minus for America.

But please tell me how the big three being the big three kept them from getting fucked by Japan? If anything their size limited their competitiveness because they were unable to structurally adapt in a convenient manner against the Japanese. It also meant that the Jp cars only had to be better than a few basically identical cars all offering the same general shittiness. I could go on but whatevs.

Economies of scale. You don't think there are efficincies gained by having Buick, Chevy, etc. under one umbrella? Obviously GM disagrees with you.

The only way this works is if laws don't apply to those who are paying no taxes. If the laws will affect them they get a say so in the law's creation. We don't live in a dictatorship. Also, what if some one pays at least 1 penny in taxes? Do they get a say then? Do bums who buy beer and pay beer tax get to vote (regardless of how they got the beer money)? Next to no one pays no taxes in the first place.

Since there's no national sales tax, the guy buying beer wouldn't get to vote in national elections. I think the number of people who pay no federal tax is larger than you think.

[Yoshi]

I don't agree with this. What if some tinfoil hat crazies don't want to get an ID? Driving isn't a constitutional right; people can make the choice not to drive or get a credit card but they still retain the right to vote.

If there was significant evidence of the type of polling booth fraud that the right crows about, I would say that putting in restrictions of some sort are reasonable. But there isn't.

How can you gather evidence for something you're not checking? You're a statistics guy. You can't estimate a population without a sample.