Interesting stuff since the election...

[CosmicCowboy]

Stock market going nuts, and commodity prices booming up. People seem to think good things are about to happen.

[clambake]

this thread comes with the built-in bump factor.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary up 1.5M votes, and counting.

[CosmicCowboy]

this thread comes with the built-in bump factor.

Just reporting the news. The speculators are anticipating good times when commodities jump like that.

http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/base/spot-copper-30d-Large.gif

[cd021]

Hillary up 1.5M votes, and counting.

1.7 million votes currently

[CosmicCowboy]

1.7 million votes currently

Meh

If it had been a popular vote they both would have campaigned differently.

Hillary knew the rules. Deal with it.

[boutons_deux]

Meh

If it had been a popular vote they both would have campaigned differently.

Hillary knew the rules. Deal with it.

gerrymandering, voter suppression/obstruction, rigged!

[Th'Pusher]

Just reporting the news. The speculators are anticipating good times when commodities jump like that.

http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/base/spot-copper-30d-Large.gif

two things. First, The election was November 8 at which time everyone suspected a Hillary win. Second, they both campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending.

[TheSanityAnnex]

two things. First, The election was November 8 at which time everyone suspected a Hillary win. Second, they both campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending.
Do you think the markets would have responded in this manner regardless of who was elected?

[Th'Pusher]

Do you think the markets would have responded in this manner regardless of who was elected?

Hard to say. Market topped out onNovember 11, two days after the election.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hard to say. Market topped out onNovember 11, two days after the election.

Nope. Market topped out higher today.

[Th'Pusher]

Nope. Market topped out higher today.
My point stands. The market was heading up when the world thought Hilary had the election in the bag and both campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending.

[CosmicCowboy]

My point stands. The market was heading up when the world thought Hilary had the election in the bag and both campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending.

How about interest rates? How about commodity prices? Back up your claim.

[DMX7]

The stock market isn't going that nuts as a result of Trump. The Dow was in the 18,000s for a lot of last year and this year. In fact, based on the huge tax cuts he's promised, the infrastructure spending and the repatriation tax break... I would have expected it to be quite higher.

[Th'Pusher]

How about interest rates? How about commodity prices? Back up your claim.

It's been a few weeks. Why don't you settle down there cowboy.

You incorrectly predicted a shitty market in 2016 under Obama and now you have a market Hard on now that a republican is in office.

All your takes are emotional. Rarely based on reason.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's been a few weeks. Why don't you settle down there cowboy.

You incorrectly predicted a shitty market in 2016 under Obama and now you have a market Hard on now that a republican is in office.

All your takes are emotional. Rarely based on reason.

You clearly can't read. I'm out of the market and buying houses instead.

[Th'Pusher]

You clearly can't read. I'm out of the market and buying houses instead.

I read just fine. If you would have gone all in in 2016 as opposed to pulling out (running away from the Obama market like you did) would you be up, or down?

[Aztecfan03]

My point stands. The market was heading up when the world thought Hilary had the election in the bag and both campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending.


but headed up faster after the election

[CosmicCowboy]

My life is a little more complicated than yours. I'm in the top tax bracket and buying houses I can deduct interest, taxes, maintenance, improvements, and depreciation meaning I save a shitload on taxes. Rent pays the out of pocket expenses while I build equity. When I sell in retirement IRS will recover the depreciation but by that time ill be in a lower regular tax bracket and gains will be taxed at capital gains rate.

[rmt]

My life is a little more complicated than yours. I'm in the top tax bracket and buying houses I can deduct interest, taxes, maintenance, improvements, and depreciation meaning I save a shitload on taxes. Rent pays the out of pocket expenses while I build equity. When I sell in retirement IRS will recover the depreciation but by that time ill be in a lower regular tax bracket and gains will be taxed at capital gains rate.

Or leave them to your kids when you die and IRS doesn't capture the depreciation or gains - only way to bypass all the depreciation.

[Winehole23]

there's an expectation of heavy public spending baked in. unified governments spend more. stimulus plus tax cuts will cost plenty.


same old borrow and spend Republicans

[pgardn]

Hillary up 1.5M votes, and counting.

Thats a tiny %

You need to come to terms with what was a close election.

[pgardn]

Or leave them to your kids when you die and IRS doesn't capture the depreciation or gains - only way to bypass all the depreciation.

Why would you deprive the IRS of funding more border patrols and strengthening our military?

[Winehole23]

like the time before, stimulus will work. it will probably be bigger this time.

[rmt]

Why would you deprive the IRS of funding more border patrols and strengthening our military?

Unlike some here, I like "my fair share" to be the lowest possible the law will allow and feel no guilt in doing whatever/investing appropriately to accomplish that.

[pgardn]

Unlike some here, I like "my fair share" to be the lowest possible the law will allow and feel no guilt in doing whatever/investing appropriately to accomplish that.

Yeah, that fair share thing is in quotes for a reason.
Its a very contentious debate in case you have not noticed.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

[rmt]

Yeah, that fair share thing is in quotes for a reason.
Its a very contentious debate in case you have not noticed.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

When my country uses my taxes wisely, responsibly and not wastes them is when I'll think that they deserve more. The rest of us has to live within a budget - why not them?

[pgardn]

When my country uses my taxes wisely, responsibly and not wastes them is when I'll think that they deserve more. The rest of us has to live within a budget - why not them?

Your taxes wisely...

There are others in this country who don't agree on what wise use is.
So we all just pay for what we want... I go with infrastructure over military.

[rmt]

There are some of us who think that the government has no business getting into certain areas (healthcare for one). Now, defense - that's a whole 'nother story - one that our founders intended the government to handle - but some might not even agree with that.

[Wild Cobra]

The stock market isn't going that nuts as a result of Trump. The Dow was in the 18,000s for a lot of last year and this year. In fact, based on the huge tax cuts he's promised, the infrastructure spending and the repatriation tax break... I would have expected it to be quite higher.

The initial bump I think is because investors like the prospects of a Trump presidency over a Hillary residency. If Trump actually gets congress to do things his way, I'll bet the markets will respond even better.

[Th'Pusher]

My life is a little more complicated than yours. I'm in the top tax bracket and buying houses I can deduct interest, taxes, maintenance, improvements, and depreciation meaning I save a shitload on taxes. Rent pays the out of pocket expenses while I build equity. When I sell in retirement IRS will recover the depreciation but by that time ill be in a lower regular tax bracket and gains will be taxed at capital gains rate.

CC is too rich to invest in the market :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

CC is too rich to invest in the market :lol

Didn't say that, but I do give thought to risk/reward in my investments. Considering the money pouring into REIT's I'm obviously not the only one that likes real estate right now.

[Winehole23]

Deficit spending plus tax cuts: one thing Obama, Bush and Trump all agree on.

One party rule makes for a bigger punch bowl: let the party begin!

[RandomGuy]

Do you think the markets would have responded in this manner regardless of who was elected?

http://www.thehumangeoguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Gerrymandering.png

[DarrinS]

Hillary up 1.5M votes, and counting.

We should just let NY and CA select our presidents, tbh.

[pgardn]

There are some of us who think that the government has no business getting into certain areas (healthcare for one). Now, defense - that's a whole 'nother story - one that our founders intended the government to handle - but some might not even agree with that.

So medicare need not even exist...

And once soildiers get their triage quickly and get back on the battlefield, any medical needs after that, just forget that. Only medicine for staying on the battlefield, once you leave, good luck.

Do you think the government has any business funding basic science research?

[DMX7]

There are some of us who think that the government has no business getting into certain areas (healthcare for one). Now, defense - that's a whole 'nother story - one that our founders intended the government to handle - but some might not even agree with that.

It stopped being "defense" a long time ago. The military spending today is as much about our maintaining global sphere on power and influence than it is about our actual defense.

[DMX7]

We should just let NY and CA select our presidents, tbh.

We should let the majority or at least the plurality of people who actually vote pick our presidents. It shouldn't matter what state they live in as long as they live in this country.

[pgardn]

We should let the majority or at least the plurality of people who actually vote pick our presidents. It shouldn't matter what state they live in as long as they live in this country.


I would like like to see a list of all the States and the weighted votes using the electoral college and number of people who voted this year. I bet a vote in Alaska might be worth twice as much as a vote in California.

[DMX7]

I would like like to see a list of all the States and the weighted votes using the electoral college and number of people who voted this year. I bet a vote in Alaska might be worth twice as much as a vote in California.

A vote in Wyoming counts almost 4x as much as a vote in California thanks to the electoral college.

WY: 3 Electoral Votes & 0.6 M People
CA: 55 Electoral Votes & 39.2 M People

CA has 18 times as many electoral votes but 67 times the population as WY.

[CosmicCowboy]

A vote in Wyoming counts almost 4x as much as a vote in California thanks to the electoral college.

WY: 3 Electoral Votes & 0.6 M People
CA: 55 Electoral Votes & 39.2 M People

CA has 18 times as many electoral votes but 67 times the population as WY.

There wouldn't be a USA to start with without the Electoral college.

[pgardn]

A vote in Wyoming counts almost 4x as much as a vote in California thanks to the electoral college.

WY: 3 Electoral Votes & 0.6 M People
CA: 55 Electoral Votes & 39.2 M People

CA has 18 times as many electoral votes but 67 times the population as WY.

I was looking for the number of electoral votes paired with the number of people that actually voted in that state in 2016. It gives a better reflection of how much a vote counted this year. It might be very close to the same numbers you put up but I don't know.

[pgardn]

There wouldn't be a USA to start with without the Electoral college.

This is is not a good reason to keep it imo.

Personally i I think keeping it and getting rid of it both have good arguments. Right now I swing towards the side of not forgetting the large land small population states. They tend to produce a lot of food and mineral wealth.

[CosmicCowboy]

I was looking for the number of electoral votes paired with the number of people that actually voted in that state in 2016. It gives a better reflection of how much a vote counted this year. It might be very close to the same numbers you put up but I don't know.

As far as that goes, votes really only count in a few swing states. Hard Red and Hard Blue your vote doesn't really count.

[pgardn]

As far as that goes, votes really only count in a few swing states. Hard Red and Hard Blue your vote doesn't really count.

Yeah I see that but folks still have to vote to make it hard.

[Bender]

A vote in Wyoming counts almost 4x as much as a vote in California thanks to the electoral college.

WY: 3 Electoral Votes & 0.6 M People
CA: 55 Electoral Votes & 39.2 M People

CA has 18 times as many electoral votes but 67 times the population as WY.

Luckily Wyoming people are smarter than Calif people

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.thehumangeoguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Gerrymandering.png
Cry more. Funny how gerrymandering wasn't an issue when the Democrats gerrymandered their way to a 40-year stranglehold on Congress. It only became a big issue when the Republicans pulled their head out of their ass and started beating the Dems at their own game.

[pgardn]

Democrats gerrymandered their way to a 40-year stranglehold on Congress..

Please list the years,of the 40 prior years, the Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress.
Slurping repeat.

40 years... where have I been. Probably not born.

[CosmicCowboy]

Please list the years,of the 40 prior years, the Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress.
Slurping repeat.

40 years... where have I been. Probably not born.

WTF?

What does the US Congress have to do with Gerrymandering? That's all state and census driven.

[Th'Pusher]

WTF?

What does the US Congress have to do with Gerrymandering? That's all state and census driven.

And for which body are the states drawing voting districts?

[DMC]

Stock market going nuts, and commodity prices booming up. People seem to think good things are about to happen.

I called it first. Me.

[DMC]

And for which body are the states drawing voting districts?

Has nothing to do with controlling both the house and senate though.

[Th'Pusher]

I called it first. Me.

I never realized what an absolute shitposter you are until you started floating around this sub forum. It's mind blowing how little value you add.

[Th'Pusher]

Has nothing to do with controlling both the house and senate though.

Wtf are you talking about? The states gerrymander the US house by way of the districts they draw. The senate obviously can't be gerrymandered.

[DMC]

I never realized what an absolute shitposter you are until you started floating around this sub forum. It's mind blowing how little value you add.

Really? I realized that about you right away when you would butt in and run your aperture, then dismiss yourself when research was required.

[DMC]

Wtf are you talking about? The states gerrymander the US house by way of the districts they draw. The senate obviously can't be gerrymandered.

Just admit you had no idea what they were even talking about and we can FFWD to the part where you quit.

[Th'Pusher]

Just admit you had no idea what they were even talking about and we can FFWD to the part where you quit.

CN said the democrats gerrymandered their way to 40 year control of congress. Pgardn asks when the democrats had a 40 year control of congress. CC then asks what gerrymandering has to do with the US congress like a moron. Then you pop in with some low value shit. Sound about right?

[DMC]

CN said the democrats gerrymandered their way to 40 year control of congress. Pgardn asks when the democrats had a 40 year control of congress. CC then asks what gerrymandering has to do with the US congress like a moron. Then you pop in with some low value shit. Sound about right?
Only for fuckers who like to change words to suit their narrative. CN said stranglehold. He didn't say control. What about that word is so unappealing that you need to change it?

[Th'Pusher]

Only for fuckers who like to change words to suit their narrative. CN said stranglehold. He didn't say control. What about that word is so unappealing that you need to change it?

I was paraphrasing. It changes absolutely nothing.

[DMC]

I was paraphrasing. It changes absolutely nothing.

Because the one touch "quote" function is so difficult as to sway you to type your paraphrase instead.

A word has several possible synonyms. You and a few others here use one of your choosing instead of the original word and then you set out arguing against it as if the original word became unavailable. Your bias forces you to pick whatever meaning suits your narrative. Then that word itself has several possible definitions, and those and the original word's definitions don't exactly line up. Eventually you're not even talking about the same thing, but that's how you prefer to argue.

[Th'Pusher]

Because the one touch "quote" function is so difficult as to sway you to type your paraphrase instead.

A word has several possible synonyms. You and a few others here use one of your choosing instead of the original word and then you set out arguing against it as if the original word became unavailable. Your bias forces you to pick whatever meaning suits your narrative. Then that word itself has several possible definitions, and those and the original word's definitions don't exactly line up. Eventually you're not even talking about the same thing, but that's how you prefer to argue.

You're just babbling now in an effort to shift the argument because you know you're wrong.

No research needed on that one :lol

[DMC]

You're just babbling now in an effort to shift the argument because you know you're wrong.

No research needed on that one :lol

I try to refocus on the original comment. Many like you wander off into the wilderness and get lost. That's why you give up on it when you realize the trek back is going to be arduous.

[Th'Pusher]

I try to refocus on the original comment. Many like you wander off into the wilderness and get lost. That's why you give up on it when you realize the trek back is going to be arduous.

I'm not giving up anything. CC said "What does the US Congress have to do with Gerrymandering?", which is a fucking ridiculous statement. You butted in with some incorrect bullshit.

Now go shitpost in another thread. You lost this one.

[DMX7]

Luckily Wyoming people are smarter than Calif people

There is more brain power in Silicon Valley alone than there is in many countries.

[CosmicCowboy]

CN said the democrats gerrymandered their way to 40 year control of congress. Pgardn asks when the democrats had a 40 year control of congress. CC then asks what gerrymandering has to do with the US congress like a moron. Then you pop in with some low value shit. Sound about right?

Quit acting like a dumbass. States set the congressional districts every 10 years after the census.

Us Congressional action has nothing to do with gerrymandering.

Congressional control is a result, not a cause.

[Th'Pusher]

Quit acting like a dumbass. States set the congressional districts every 10 years after the census.

Us Congressional action has nothing to do with gerrymandering.

Congressional control is a result, not a cause.

No shit congressional control is a result. CN was suggesting that the RESULT of gerrymandering was ok with democrats when democrats were doing the gerrymandering.

You jumped in like a dumbass and asked what the US Congress has to with gerrymandering. That's a fucking stupid question. The US congress is the beneficiary of gerrymandering.

[CosmicCowboy]

No shit congressional control is a result. CN was suggesting that the RESULT of gerrymandering was ok with democrats when democrats were doing the gerrymandering.

You jumped in like a dumbass and asked what the US Congress has to with gerrymandering. That's a fucking stupid question. The US congress is the beneficiary of gerrymandering.

In a political forum I normally assume I don't have to spell out basic details about how gerrymandering is created by both parties. I guess you are the exception. 1960s democrats gerrymandered Texas districts. 2000's republicans do. 2000's democrats gerrymander New York districts. Is what it is.

[Th'Pusher]

Cry more. Funny how gerrymandering wasn't an issue when the Democrats gerrymandered their way to a 40-year stranglehold on Congress. It only became a big issue when the Republicans pulled their head out of their ass and started beating the Dems at their own game.


Please list the years,of the 40 prior years, the Democrats controlled both chambers in Congress.
Slurping repeat.

40 years... where have I been. Probably not born.


WTF?

What does the US Congress have to do with Gerrymandering? That's all state and census driven.


In a political forum I normally assume I don't have to spell out basic details about how gerrymandering is created by both parties. I guess you are the exception. 1960s democrats gerrymandered Texas districts. 2000's republicans do. 2000's democrats gerrymander New York districts. Is what it is.

:lol we're not discussing the basics of gerrymandering.

I understand how it works and that both parties do it. But, when you read the above, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. What does the US Congress have to do with gerrymandering you ask? It's the fucking primary beneficiary which is exactly what CN was suggesting and pgardn was questioning.

Just rub DMC's old balls a little. The two of you need to pretend this thread didn't happen because you both look really stupid.

Walk away.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol we're not discussing the basics of gerrymandering.

I understand how it works and that both parties do it. But, when you read the above, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. What does the US Congress have to do with gerrymandering you ask? It's the fucking primary beneficiary which is exactly what CN was suggesting and pgardn was questioning.

Just rub DMC's old balls a little. The two of you need to pretend this thread didn't happen because you both look really stupid.

Walk away.

:lmao

If you agree that representation in congress is due to census driven gerrymangering by the states why are you arguing with me? Thats exactly what I said.

You certainly are an unreasonably argumentative little bitch.

[Spurminator]

:lmao

If you agree that representation in congress is due to census driven gerrymangering by the states

"Census driven" seems to be the fundamental disagreement here.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Census driven" seems to be the fundamental disagreement here.

Really? Why? The number of States representantives rise and fall every 10 years when the census comes out which means district lines have to be redrawn. The party currently in power in the State redraws the lines. As Obama said, elections matter.

Our country is called the United STATES for a reason. In the great constitutional compromise that created the US, States reserved a lot of power. thus the Electoral system and Gerrymandering.

The question Democrats should be asking themselves is why do 30 plus states elect Republican state officers?

[Spurminator]

Really? Why? The number of States representantives rise and fall every 10 years when the census comes out which means district lines have to be redrawn. The party currently in power in the State redraws the lines. As Obama said, elections matter.

Right. The redistricting is census-timed and the party in power redraws the lines, usually in a way that gives them an advantage in future elections. We all know this.

The question is do half of us say "tough shit" when it benefits our side while the other cries "bullshit" or do we all agree that it's kind of bullshit both ways? The former seems like lazy partisan cheerleading to me. The intent of redistricting is to rebalance voting districts based on the census, not based on strategic vote manipulation.

[Bender]

There is more brain power in Silicon Valley alone than there is in many countries.

regarding political brain power, Calif scores -0-, Silicon Valley or not.

[DMX7]

regarding political brain power, Calif scores -0-, Silicon Valley or not.

lol, based on what?

[dbestpro]

A vote in Wyoming counts almost 4x as much as a vote in California thanks to the electoral college.

WY: 3 Electoral Votes & 0.6 M People
CA: 55 Electoral Votes & 39.2 M People

CA has 18 times as many electoral votes but 67 times the population as WY.

In a republic, the voting responsibility is greater than one man one vote. This is why we are a republic of individual states each with measured responsibility. You can always move to Wyoming if it bothers you so much.
Also, California has 17.9 million registered voters, while Texas had 15 million registered voters. Texas only gets 38 electoral votes to California's 55. 20% greater voting population, but over 40% more votes. Seems to balance out in the end.

[Drachen]

We should just let NY and CA select our presidents, tbh.

Instead of OH and FL

[DMX7]

In a republic, the voting responsibility is greater than one man one vote. This is why we are a republic of individual states each with measured responsibility. You can always move to Wyoming if it bothers you so much.
Also, California has 17.9 million registered voters, while Texas had 15 million registered voters. Texas only gets 38 electoral votes to California's 55. 20% greater voting population, but over 40% more votes. Seems to balance out in the end.

Actually, it doesn't seem to balance out in the end or we wouldn't have the loser of the popular vote winning the election for the 2nd time in 5 presidential elections. And I suppose anyone could move to Wyoming or we could do the more reasonable thing and change the system (or at least make the representation for each state more in line with its population when selecting a president).

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, it doesn't seem to balance out in the end or we wouldn't have the loser of the popular vote winning the election for the 2nd time in 5 presidential elections. And I suppose anyone could move to Wyoming or we could do the more reasonable thing and change the system (or at least make the representation for each state more in line with its population when selecting a president).

So do you propose doing away with the Senate?

It's the same popular vote theory.

[pgardn]

Actually, it doesn't seem to balance out in the end or we wouldn't have the loser of the popular vote winning the election for the 2nd time in 5 presidential elections. And I suppose anyone could move to Wyoming or we could do the more reasonable thing and change the system (or at least make the representation for each state more in line with its population when selecting a president).

For the 2nd time since 1888 as well.

[DMX7]

So do you propose doing away with the Senate?

It's the same popular vote theory.

I'm more ok with the senate than the electoral college because the senate is only one house of a bicameral legislature.

[Thread]

I'm more ok with the senate than the electoral college because the senate is only one house of a bicameral legislature.

Bend over. I'll give ya some fuckin' bicaramel.

[Winehole23]

In a political forum I normally assume I don't have to spell out basic details about how gerrymandering is created by both parties. I guess you are the exception. 1960s democrats gerrymandered Texas districts. 2000's republicans do. 2000's democrats gerrymander New York districts. Is what it is.some states have non-partisan redistricting boards. might be a preferable system.