No way, CC. It took us this freakin' long to figure out how to utilize the EC.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Printable View
No way, CC. It took us this freakin' long to figure out how to utilize the EC.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.
note to the american people prior to 1912Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Why not do away with current system of selecting senators and put it up to a vote of the people? It's really pretty simple. Article 1, section 3, clause 1 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want, but your are stuck with your state legislature picking your senators for you.
haven't really addressed this at allQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.
The Democrat has won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections.
but feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Right. We still have slavery and women can't vote.:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lolK b:lol:lolmerQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
As usual Chump starts building ridiculous strawmen. The Electoral College was still the law of the land when slavery was abolished and women got the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
How is showing the Constitution can be and has been changed a straw man?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
women still couldn't vote when slavery was abolished. was women's complaining about the right to vote as useless as complaining about gravity... until it wasn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
a good starting point would be to answer this question: feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?
When a state like California has a total vote count and the dems have millions more than the GOP, no one is demanding a recount. However if the grand total of all states was close enough, recounts in every state would matter. You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?
It depends on the circumstances. If you think there should only be 2 people in the general election, then sure, but what if there are 3 or 4 under your new system? Since no one has to get a specific number of electoral votes to win now, 4 people could be on the ballot and so the winner could have only 30% of the vote, or less. Is that more fair than the winner having 49% of the vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
He may or may not be done but this isn't going to be the reason why. :lol TSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA
If people cared about this kind of behavior, do you think we'd have this dumbass president right now? Thought so
what would be the basis of a recount? if you have particular reason to believe there's an issue with the vote. you have the same vote gathering measures as we already have. if there are issues in a particular state, have them recount it. like it's already done.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?Quote:
You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.
no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.Quote:
Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?
states still hold elections at the same time for their representatives, senators, ballot measures, etc. why would you then have a completely separate apparatus for the presidential vote? you're suggesting that the situation needs to be unnecessarily complicated. it doesnt. keep the same vote-gathering system we have in place. you just ignore the midde-man math step of the EC.
Total count is close, even if 4 ways. What's the acceptable margin of error on 130 million votes?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
If your results are close, a recount could be called for, and you couldn't just cherry pick the state. It would have to be nationwide, because the numbers gained or lost in one state due to recount could be reversed in another.
Because you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.Quote:
what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?
More feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.Quote:
no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.
It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
why does the number of candidates matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
what happens if there are 3 or 4 on the ballot under the current EC? right now, as it stands, if nobody gets the majority of electoral votes (270), a winner isn't declared. the house of representatives then votes for president. you can still keep that "tiebreak" method in place even if we switch from requiring a majority of the EC votes to a majority of the popular vote.
or you can have ranked choice voting which would be another solution
this is why you can still conduct recounts on a state by state basis the same way we do now. if theres reason to believe that a specific state or states had discrepancies in their reporting or their popular vote was within x%, you recount only those states.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
there's no need for an all-or-nothing national vote recount.
i disagree. i think it makes more sense for the states to gather their own votes the same way they already do for representatives, senators, etc. you already have all the people gathering on election day to vote for all these things. deciding to complicating by adding a separate election day, or separate polling locations specifically for the presidential vote would be very stupid. it also prevents the need for all-or-nothing nationwide recounts as i mentioned above. it makes perfect sense to keep the current vote-gathering system in placeQuote:
Because you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.
right now, states already gather votes for local, state, and national elections. why is it going to suddenly become problematic for states continuing to do exactly the same thing they already do now? you're unnecessarily complicating itQuote:
More feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
right now, a popular vote for the president is already being gathered every single election. pretending that you have to complete uproot the method in which the popular vote is gathered, quite frankly, makes no sense.
the only people that have to change how they go about things are presidential candidates who no longer will be able to ignore large portions of the population and disproportionally campaign in only a handful of states... as if the people of those states are any more important than any other american anywhere
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything more deserve of an “OK boomer” response than this post :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
A solution to what? What's the current issue?
It's not being scrutinized nationally. When is the last time any of the stronghold states had recounts? Just because one side wins handily every time in these states doesn't mean the count is accurate. No one calls for a recount when a million votes separates the candidates, but errors can stack x 50 states.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
You keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.
You obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.
cool. so if the general election ends up being very close, you should have a good faith basis to decide where a recount is needed. if some states had irregularities with reporting, thats might indicate a need to look there. if there's a compelling case for a nationwide recount, so be it. 2000 is the only time in the last 40 years that the popular vote was less than ~3 million apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it
what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making shit up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular vote :lolQuote:
You keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.
im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITSQuote:
You obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.
For one, it's never going to happen because the left and right cannot agree to a fucking thing, and it requires some consensus in Washington to change the constitution. 2nd, fairness is just a lovely dressing the left wraps this in, because if it was about majority rules, then the minorities in the country would have no voice. The non-urban areas of the US, and states not named California and New York also have an interest in how the country is run, but the left only seems to care about majority rules when they have the majority. At the same time, they want their minority opinions to be dragged to the forefront of social discussion.
what is this post referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
:lol irregularities are fine if the margins are big enough to look like a solid win.
when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left" :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
and the feasibility of getting a constitutional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"
if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system
Pretty much your stance on Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
One thing that the blue team absolutely has to come to grips with is that Trump won the election under our current rules.
This has to be accepted and respected. And Hillary 2 million ahead in the popular vote is still a very close election.
So I personally have no problem with 2016 results. But if the red team does not recognize and actually take foreign interference seriously, instead of claiming 2 million Democrat vote were cast illegally, then the red team is far worse than the some of the blue team refusing to accept Trump as president. This lying and fake news has to be treated like the a virus. Its real, lets try to get the best numbers we can, and put the best people out there trying to predict what could happen and why. And then move and take precautions that EVERYONE agrees with. But they cant, because a virus and real numbers and logic defy politics. For some, deep seated hatred, that really does not pass as legitimate concern rules.
Stop fucking around with elections. Tell the truth. Yes blue team, claiming victory in a fd up useless Iowa caucas counts as Trumpian manipulation. I won, no I won, but, but... Just stop it and reveal exactly why it was such a mess. Then fix it.
Good faith? Did you watch the impeachment trial? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
You're trying to use results from one equation to answer a different equation. What happened under today's rules wouldn't necessarily be what happens under different rules. I thought you got that concept, I've said it 3 times at least, but you keep going back to past counts.
You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.Quote:
the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it
How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.Quote:
what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making shit up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular vote :lol
What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.
Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.Quote:
im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITS
I said left and right. How is that a broad stroke about the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
However the right isn't pushing for rule changes to the entire election process because "muh popular vote".
It's being discussed if that's what I want to discuss. Do you want to control the narrative now too? :lolQuote:
and the feasibility of getting a constitutional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"
It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a shit ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.Quote:
if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system
teah you keep repeating this and never elaborate when asked. It’s a vague and cryptic concern. Explain how it would manifestQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
:lol really? Why don’t you look back at how the conversation started. You always whine about people jumping into discussions without having read the previous dialogue.Quote:
You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.
Choosing the winner by popular vote is more fair and sensical because it gives every Americans vote equal weight and consequence. The EC creates the unnecessary potential of allowing a minority vote to prevail because of the geography of the voters. The EC disincentivizes voting in non battleground states. Republican voters in New York are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections. And so on.
The EC makes it such that the same persons vote is significantly more consequential if he lives in Ohio as opposed to Oregon, even though the president is nationally elected.
if circumstances reflect that there’s a significant likelihood of inaccuracy they can recount. This isn’t a novel concept. Even in state wide elections sometimes they only hold recounts in those counties where there were irregularities. If the issues can’t be reasonably narrowed and results are within some accepted margin (say, 1%) then sure maybe the possibility arises that we need a national recount. Recounts are a possibility in any election scheme. That’s not enough of a deterrent.Quote:
How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.
what? :lolQuote:
What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.
Oh ok. Maybe if you change your counter arguments a few more times you might end up with a god oneQuote:
Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.
ive said i agree that the feasibility of amending the constitution is an obstacle unlikely to be overcome. How much more do you want to discuss it. Would you be satisfied if we repeat this line back to each other a few more times?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Your arguments have evolved over such a short period of time because they aren’t well thought out and are pointed out as such.Quote:
It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a shit ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.
but ok. Let’s talk fairness. I think the most fair method of a national election is more every American vote to carry with it equal weight and consequence.
Do you disagree?
What are you saying happened in Iowa?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Suspicious activity. You want info refer to the posts in that thread instead of doing your infinite loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Sorry, why don't you say what you found so suspicious in your own words?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Let's discuss your concerns.
Because there is a current thread that lists plenty of suspicious activity and I don't need to list stuff for you to nitpick.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lmao Nitpicking is your endgame always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I'm not sure why you say this, when Trump campaigned for a closed economy (tariffs, bringing back manufacturing, stopping outsourcing), "cheap and best" healthcare, that the rich hedge fund guys were going to have to lose money this time, leave Social Security as it is, etc... That's textbook left populist message.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Maybe not Bernie's level left, but decidedly left of center.
Sure, he aligned with the right on environmental regulations and tax cuts, and that's exactly why I mention ideology has little to do with it. He was all over the place, and very light on details.
Way back at post 400 I told you how you could accomplish your goal of the Presidential vote tracking the popular vote without doing away with the EC and you just blew right by it and kept whining. States can individually decide to have their electors proportionately track their popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Parsimony is needed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
People live in states and they vote with state needs in mind. Without states, you would be correct. States with more people have more power than states with fewer people. Thats represented also with the EC and reps in Washington.
So no states, popular vote is ok. With states, voters are already segregated and the voting controlled by states.
As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.
If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.
derp foldsQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Folding is your endgame always.
so you don’t think every Americans vote should have equal effect and weight when it comes to voting for president. Ok, that’s where we are at an impasseQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Nobody is suggesting we undo previous elections, so this concern is unfounded.Quote:
As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.
If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.
This was post 400Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
But to your post, i agree that it would be an improvement to our current system. It would require all 50 states to buy in, though, which is arguably harder than amending the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Since that system is almost seeking to emulate the effect of a popular vote, can i take that to mean that you would agree it’s a better system to have everybody’s vote count as equal regardless of where they live?
just answer the question tbh :lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lmao fucker thinks he is Chump now. Ask the same stupid question for three pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
This is what I'd do. Keep it a state-by-state vote, but Wyoming should be so disproportionately represented in the EC vs. California.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I think every state should do what it considers to be in its best interest. There. I answered your last rephrased question.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
thats a result of the senate and the fixed number of reps which leads to imperfect proportional representationQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
derpesqueQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
no, you aren't answering. i asked if you would agree that it's a better system to have everybody's vote count as equal regardless of where they live.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
if you dont hold that opinion that's your business. it shouldn't be that hard to just say so :lol
Sure, I know there's precedent, but we're discussing an overhaul of how we elect a President and I think it's a pretty fair middle ground. Don't think you can change the Senate. Best fix for that is more states.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire. Harry Reid learned that the hard way when he went nuclear in 2013 on Federal judge appointments. The Republicans have crammed that decision up his ass ever since.
Because McConnell obstructed at an unprecedented rate for four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
oh, absolutely. i already said i'd be for that solution as a reasonable compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
but that requires all 50 states to be on board, individually
The funny thing about this argument from them is that the EC favors their party. It's only when they run incredibly shitty candidates like Gore & Hillary that they have a problem with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
i dont have an issue with this because the popular vote is not inherently advantageous to any one party of the other. it's only advantageous to the people, because only in that system does everybody's vote count as the same. your vote in texas right now, in terms of the presidential election, means dick-all. i dont know why you prefer that to a popular vote where your vote now matters as much as some shmuck who happens to live on florida or pennsylvaniaQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
how did you reach the conclusion that the EC favors the democratic party?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Same way he reached the conclusion that Trump would be a Democrat after getting elected?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
How does that make any sense? The GOP ran incredibly shitty candidates in Bush and Trump and won thanks only to the EC.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
If Repugs had lost 2 of the last 5 elections due to EC, they would have been SCREAMING to abolish the EC.
The EC has failed to block the Trash type of candidate that the FFs feared when they created the EC
America simply can't fix its shit, which shit has been rigged, weaponized against solutions.
The GOP has won the popular vote once in the last 30 years and yet they have won 3 of those 7 elections. But the electoral college favors the Democrats. :lmao
and they'd have a great point tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
i love how the argument is "we dont want 51% to impose their will on the 49%" but somehow its much better to allow the 49% to impose their will on the 51%? :lol
I still remember in gradeschool thinking how stupid the electoral college sounded when we were taught it but the teachers said it always lines up with the popular vote anyways so it didn't matter. Too bad we couldn't get rid of this stain from slavery before ClearChannel and Fox News radicalized the right. It's obviously never going anywhere now under this current scumbag Republican party.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol what a trip... i was in grade school when bush/gore happened, and i remember not understanding what the fuck was going on, especially with the court getting involved. i just remember my dad (current trumper, for reference) telling me nothing except gore was trying to cheat, and calling Gore-Lieberman Sore-LosermanQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Your dad was smart. Why did you rebel against him?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Well, I'm not really considering the political advantage, I'm considering the equal balance. With that said, I don't see how the two scenarios are similar. Population and demographics don't shift substantially back and forth every four years like with elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
oh, the more i read the more i learned. simple stuff like even understanding how marginal tax brackets work (something i had to even walk you through, not that long ago)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
:lmao derp's educationQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
"It's only when the Democrats win the popular vote with shitty candidates that the EC doesn't favor them."Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Solid take.
Dems and Repubs enable the rich to eat the poor, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
I don't even like Bush; but your dad was right about Gore's antics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Blake impressions won't get you the tiny w's you crave, tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You're nowhere near as intelligent as you want people here to think and it burns you up inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Now use some big words to compensate.
I remember the convo but not exactly what your thoughts were on that. Give me a refresher.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:rollin :rollin :rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Chump's insecurities bubbling up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
ST's search function is down, but i was able to google "spurstalk marginal tax rates spurtacular" and it took me to the thread :lol.
there was an earlier part of the convo that i was having with darrin, where he made a mistake about the marginal rates and then realized and acknowledged it. you for some reason decided that no, he was completely accurate all along :lol. click on any of these posts to go back to the thread for full context
this was his original comment with respect to having a higher marginal tax rate (70%) on income above 10 mil
but the analysis was wrong because he operated under the assumption that the entirety of the 12M would be taxed at 70%. he quickly realized and acknowledged that like an adult. you then decided no he's right all alongQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
basically anyone who thinks "if i show less income, i will take home more money after taxes" fundamentally misunderstands how tax brackets work... and that ends up being a talking about among conservatives who argue against the concept of tax brackets
"if they set a new bracket at $200,000, then people will just try to make 199k instead of 201k!"
:cry I'm being punished for making more money :cryQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Always my favorite talking point/bitch.
they're admittedly lines i would parrot without understanding what the fuck i was talking about... until i actually learned how these things worked. i was probably insufferable as fuck during high schoolQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
i actually read "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Medal of Freedom winning Rush Limbaugh and "How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must)" by Ann Coulter during high school :lol
I wasn't asking you to spike the football and/or post all that garble, Lite. I just want you to give me a brief synopsis (a few lines) on marginal tax brackets and why you think the Democrats are so much better in changing the structure.
ok. brief synopsis is that my views on things like tax rates changed when i actually learned about how they worked, and that you were a good example of somebody who still has trouble grasping how they workQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Okay, lash out all you want. I just figured you would be interested in a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Always. What would you like to discuss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
I recall that tax rate kicking in at various dollar amounts on rates starting at said marks. I don't recall exactly what your issue is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
that wasn't the message you were trying to get across in that previous discussion. if you've come around and learned how the brackets actually work, good on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
the basic rule is that no matter what the brackets are, you will never take home less money by getting into a higher bracket. you do get diminishing returns, of course, but you never lose money by making more, which is a (frustratingly) common misconception.
so when AOC wants to slap on a 70% for everybody making north of 10 mil, it's fundamentally wrong to say that you take home more money by showing 9.9 mil of income as opposed to 10.1 mil. if you have "come to terms" with that, then we're good (doesnt mean you have to agree that the tax would be a good thing)
and circling back to how this came up, before i understood how the brackets worked (and made the very mistake that now frustrates me to see), i thought tax brackets were inherently bad and thought a flat tax made more sense. i no longer believe that because i've learned how taxes actually work. my views change as i learn.
Okay, so there's a common misconception out there. I'm still not for the government doing nothing and feeling entitled to the lion's share of person's earnings. You may recall being taught in your econ classes about how excessive taxation is waste. Somehow, liberals love to ignore this very basic reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
right, the laffer curve. the issue with the laffer curve is that it is incredibly vague and there's no real mathematical analysis determining what the optimum tax rates are. its entirely conceptual. and of course, optimum tax rates would differ based on income level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
assuming flat rates with no brackets, just for the sake of argument, if i'm earning 100k a year but paying 70% taxes on all that money, its not worth my while to only bring home 30k. but if i'm earning 200 mil a year gross and paying 70% taxes on all that money, i'm still bringing home 60 mil net. hardly causing me financial strain, and still worth my while.
i dont think the US is anywhere near being on the "wrong side" of the laffer curve
It's not a curve; it's just a basic principle. Taxes are to be taken out to be paid on services the private sector won't perform. Any excess is considered waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
One could argue socialism is better than the crony capitalism we have now; but I'm still not overlooking the inevitability of grand waste and that what we will have is crony socialism.
There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to cover their crazy plans. At least Bernie was honest enough to admit that taxes on middle class would have to be increased.
Pocohantas shut down when she was asked how she was going to pay for the plans she stole from Bernie. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
socialism and capitalism are on a spectrum. we dont have to go all-in in either direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
That's oversimplified. Our means of production is largely capitalistic / crony capitalistic. Our compulsory taxation and programs are largely crony socialism with a lot of waste. I don't want to expand upon that waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
right. i dont think warren's plan is tenable, tbh... she wants to pin too much of it on employers. it makes more sense to acknowledge that taxes will go up on people but with the understanding that it will be more than offset by their no longer paying premiums/deductibles/copaysQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I got into Coulter and D'Souza for a while after 9/11. Watched a lot of Hannity too and listened to his radio show. At some point I noticed my intelligence was being insulted. It's troubling that so many people never reach that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
This is a fairly common dig, but the numbers don't back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/up...population.png
You can do a runoff with the top two candidates... I mean, this isn't new.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
I called it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
Me
The sooner this guy has a stroke, the better the Dems will be in figuring out their candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
https://www.city-journal.org/red-sta...phic-advantage
That's great, but anecdotal. Comparing 10 years worth of blue state domination to last year and calling it a trend, well, you buy that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The numbers still don't back it up. I've been hearing about the mass exodus of people away from California for years on end, yet, their population keeps going up and up, and no more or less than Texas.
I would agree, however, that there's a demographic shift. It's simply more expensive to live in cities that give better salaries, so there's certainly class turnaround.