Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Guardian said:


One of over 11,000 affidavit’s legal team says they have. One down 10,999 to go assuming more don’t come forward. And if they are all false, so be it. Each should be taken on its own merit. Not as a cause.

500 affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents. Very little information on what these “incidents” entailed. One person is claiming that 60% of a batch of ballots had the same signature on them. OK. Did this person produce any proof? Photographs maybe? If so, why haven’t we seen them? If not, what qualifications did this individual have? Are they an expert in handwriting? What makes them qualified to judge that the signatures were, in fact, identical? Was this person even a poll worker? What was their physical position that allowed them to observe these ballots? The Trump campaign producing little more than hearsay. It’s going to take more than that to convince a judge. Is anyone surprised that 500 people have come forward with fraud claims? Frankly, I’m surprised there aren’t more at this point. Might many of these people be biased? Again, the onus is on the Trump campaign to PROOVE these bold allegations. Five hundred people saying they saw something fishy doesn’t constitute proof. Even if all of their allegations turn out to be true and credible (doubtful), do the votes that are then thrown out tip the scale in Trumps favor? Remember, we’re not just talking one state like 2000. This will have to be the case in several states. If anyone thinks Trump has a fighting chance in this thing, I’ve got a very nice ocean front igloo to sell you in Maui. It’s time to stop the charade. People like Graham, Cruz, and Pompeo who are enabling this circus are only doing further damage to their already shaky legacies. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Complete and utter malarkey. ONE mainstream network went after Obama, Foxnews, some of it unwarranted Political tripe, some of it valid.  Meanwhile ALL of the remaining mainstream networks suppor

Want to slash American carbon?  Build nuclear power plants.  

When MSNBC announced Trump's win in Iowa, there was an audible grunt from Rachel Madow. By the sound of it, she apparently sat on her sack wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

What're your thoughts on the monopsony theory of minimum wage for low skill labor? Would you consider a minimum wage increase law that self destructs if employment falls below 3% of what it was before law was passed? I fleshed this argument out in detail earlier if you do a search for "monopsony"

I found your post from August 1st? I have to admit I had never even heard the word monopsony before your post tonight. So with that said, I've spent about 10 minutes thinking about it and I'm not sure who the single buyer for cheap labor is? I feel like there are a great many buyers for cheap labor and only a few buyers for very expensive labor. My gut tells me that it is unavoidable and has been an economic law since before we had a name for it. It just seems to me that as you lower the wage you're willing to work for, the greater the number of potential employers becomes? "Hey I'll work for $10K/hr" vs "I'll work for peanuts."

"While the imposition of a minimum wage on a monopsony employer could increase employment and wages at the same time, the possibility is generally regarded as empirically unimportant, given the rarity of cases of monopsony power in labor markets." (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microeconomics/chapter/monopsony-and-the-minimum-wage/#:~:text=In a competitive market%2C workers,are less than their MRPs.&text=In a monopsony market%2C however,time as it boosts wages!)

I must not be understanding something. What am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Prozac said:

500 affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents. Very little information on what these “incidents” entailed. One person is claiming that 60% of a batch of ballots had the same signature on them. OK. Did this person produce any proof? Photographs maybe? If so, why haven’t we seen them? If not, what qualifications did this individual have? Are they an expert in handwriting? What makes them qualified to judge that the signatures were, in fact, identical? Was this person even a poll worker? What was their physical position that allowed them to observe these ballots? The Trump campaign producing little more than hearsay. It’s going to take more than that to convince a judge. Is anyone surprised that 500 people have come forward with fraud claims? Frankly, I’m surprised there aren’t more at this point. Might many of these people be biased? Again, the onus is on the Trump campaign to PROOVE these bold allegations. Five hundred people saying they saw something fishy doesn’t constitute proof. Even if all of their allegations turn out to be true and credible (doubtful), do the votes that are then thrown out tip the scale in Trumps favor? Remember, we’re not just talking one state like 2000. This will have to be the case in several states. If anyone thinks Trump has a fighting chance in this thing, I’ve got a very nice ocean front igloo to sell you in Maui. It’s time to stop the charade. People like Graham, Cruz, and Pompeo who are enabling this circus are only doing further damage to their already shaky legacies. 

Oh man the hypocrisy is just hysterical. 

Liberals in 2016: This is our election process, allegations of Russian interference should be thoroughly investigated even if the evidence is thin. 

Conservatives in 2016: This is our election process, allegations of voter fraud should be thoroughly investigated even if the evidence is thin. 

This isn't specific to calling you out Prozac. Your post just made me think of it. This is abundant on both sides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the message is the WaPO is an amazing paper then yes, it does.

Pennsylvania postal worker's claims of voter fraud come under question

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-postal-worker-ballot-tampering-claims-questioned
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you did this in Philly, Detroit, Atlanta or Milwaukee... none of the serious claims involve you.

Could that be because Trump is only fighting states where he lost a close race, and is “trusting the system” where he won? So it’s widespread, but only through about 4 locations?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be great if everyone could make more money, but honestly, the only thing raising minimum wage does is push current workers (i.e. me) closer to it. It's nice to make a high(er) multiple of the minimum wage - it's dangerous the lower that multiple becomes. Two other things are overlooked with this argument. The first is that the true minimum wage is $0/hr - no matter what anyone says. The second is that the value of someone's hour of labor is not a fixed amount, and in some cases it's actually negative. Minimum wage seems like a "quick fix" because it appears to immediately get you to the desired end-state, but neither of those facts is side-stepped by it, but it sure does play well with a sector of the working class. Not to mention employers simply adapt the number of employees or the number of hours they work. These things always have unavoidable "side-effects."
The other major factor (or multiple factors) in reference to wages is deflation. We're all worried about inflation, but ask yourself why the Fed is struggling so hard to get it up (sts). It's because there are MAJOR deflationary forces in operation right now. One is technology - which is hugely deflationary (https://www.zdnet.com/article/unstoppable-tech-driven-deflation-will-be-the-next-economic-challenge/). The second is the aging demographic make-up of our society and the concordant reality that people achieve peak spending at an approximate age of 46, at which time it begins decreasing. The higher the average age of an American becomes, the further from that magic number (46) we'll get, and the harder deflation will bite.
In reference to student loans, the moral hazard is extreme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard). Loaning money is a risky proposition, but at the same time, making good loans is a money-making opportunity. So my question is 'why doesn't the university system back the loans themselves' since they stand to profit from it? Could it be because they don't believe in their own product? The question immediately answers itself. Good loans make money and net positive return. It's because all of the risk has been externalized to the US taxpayer courtesy of the US government. With cost and risk externalized, what incentive is there to not admitting literally everyone? The only long-term solution to this problem is to fully remove the government from the student loan business and allow universities to provide loans to their most promising candidates. As a side-benefit, the positive effect on "X-studies" degrees would be almost instant. The current system is unsustainable. What's in a name? That which we call communism, by any other name would smell just as sour.
That said, I do agree that student loan debt is a problem, but if we're going to agree to waive a magic wand and "forgive" debt, then we absolutely do need to address restitution for those guys that are like him: 
To address the Fed, I agree wholeheartedly. I would only add that we've been overspending for a much longer time than Trump has been in office. Conventional wisdom holds that the Obama years were prosperous, but would you call running up massive credit card debt prosperity when you're unable to pay your bills?

While I agree with you in principle, I don’t based on my experience in the military. Loose comparison on the student loan forgiveness thing and those who did the right thing vs those who didn’t would be the master’s degree requirement in the AF. Those who came up in that system perpetuated it because they got to positions of power and said, “I had to do it, so everyone who follows me does too!”

I get it, not an apples to apples comparison, but it illustrates the point that when you’re trying to make things better for those that follow you, the path is obviously going to be easier for them, and there isn’t any kind of guarantee you’ll get any type of renumeration or “payback” for what you’ve done. You’re just happy with leaving things better for those that follow.

I don’t expect my kids to pay me back for all I’ve done for them. If I can clear some obstacles I had to fight through in my time in the AF for the Airmen that follow me, I don’t care that I don’t get the time spent on those obstacles back.

If I have to pay for school, and the generations that follow me don’t, I’m okay with that. I agree, it sucks that I lost out on that money, but “a rising tide lifts all ships.”

EDITED TO ADD: I also don’t see how she would be able to pull something like this off. Warren is a hack, and I don’t like her. Crazy expensive and unrealistic. I just wanted to say that I am supportive of the idea if they could find a way to fiscally do it. As many of us know, starting life with significant debt simply to get an education sucks.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Oh man the hypocrisy is just hysterical. 

Liberals in 2016: This is our election process, allegations of Russian interference should be thoroughly investigated even if the evidence is thin. 

Conservatives in 2016: This is our election process, allegations of voter fraud should be thoroughly investigated even if the evidence is thin. 

This isn't specific to calling you out Prozac. Your post just made me think of it. This is abundant on both sides. 

I’m hearing this a lot lately from conservatives. I kind of get the sentiment, but if you remember, the Clinton campaign never contested what was a very close election. Trump’s margin of victory was much slimmer than Biden’s in many swing states and Clinton would’ve been well within her rights to take it to drawn out court battles. She didn’t. She conceded. Democrats then made claims of foreign interference in the election which turned out to be absolutely valid. We are all familiar with the collusion claims and investigations that followed, but despite the right wing tropes, the Democrats never called for “overturning” the election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Negatory said:

Here's another rhetorical question in regards to the fraud.

Why didn't dems take the senate? The ballots are the same piece of paper. Those votes are probably bad too?

I've seen some of my friends float increasingly nutty theories that the GOP and DNC cut a deal to get rid of Trump.  

I don't believe those theories at all.  I think Trump just lost a close race.  But that is the retort the hardcore Trumpers have floated...that the GOP cut a deal to look the other way on voter fraud for the president if they could retain the senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m hearing this a lot lately from conservatives. I kind of get the sentiment, but if you remember, the Clinton campaign never contested what was a very close election. Trump’s margin of victory was much slimmer than Biden’s in many swing states and Clinton would’ve been well within her rights to take it to drawn out court battles. She didn’t. She conceded. Democrats then made claims of foreign interference in the election which turned out to be absolutely valid. We are all familiar with the collusion claims and investigations that followed, but despite the right wing tropes, the Democrats never called for “overturning” the election. 

Truth.

Were there actual red flags then to investigate? Or did multiple states show Her leading by huge margins for a long time only to be erased by suspicious circumstances? That’s the difference.

And didn’t just this last spring we wrap up the Russia investigation and second unsuccessful attempt at impeaching him to remove him from office? One could argue that they investigated it for 3 years and actually fabricated evidence to pin on trump that didn’t stick.

So I don’t think that is a strong argument. If the courts play out, I doubt you will have many republicans for the next four years calling Biden an illegitimate president
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’m hearing this a lot lately from conservatives. I kind of get the sentiment, but if you remember, the Clinton campaign never contested what was a very close election. Trump’s margin of victory was much slimmer than Biden’s in many swing states and Clinton would’ve been well within her rights to take it to drawn out court battles. She didn’t. She conceded. Democrats then made claims of foreign interference in the election which turned out to be absolutely valid. We are all familiar with the collusion claims and investigations that followed, but despite the right wing tropes, the Democrats never called for “overturning” the election. 

No, but it's important to realise they didn't need to. The implications of Russia tipping the election scale were enough to shadow the legitimacy of Trumps ascension and fueled a movement of "not my president." It created an atmosphere where Trump had to spend more time defending his credibility than actually running the country. 

Same history is going to repeat here. If people believe Joe Biden's ascension to office was illegitimate, be will face the political upheaval of a stale government that will repulse his actions at every turn. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Guardian said:


Truth.

Were there actual red flags then to investigate? Or did multiple states show Her leading by huge margins for a long time only to be erased by suspicious circumstances? That’s the difference.

And didn’t just this last spring we wrap up the Russia investigation and second unsuccessful attempt at impeaching him to remove him from office? One could argue that they investigated it for 3 years and actually fabricated evidence to pin on trump that didn’t stick.

So I don’t think that is a strong argument. If the courts play out, I doubt you will have many republicans for the next four years calling Biden an illegitimate president

A couple things:

Everyone knew this election would be different due to the pandemic. The “blue shift” was predicted long before the election by anyone who cared to ponder the fact that the president’s supporters were likely to vote at the polls, while Biden supporters were far more likely to vote by mail. Pennsylvania law (passed by Republicans) meant that mail in votes there could not even be processed until Tuesday (other states have laws that allowed processing much earlier-hence Florida’s relatively early result). This process was further hampered by the Trump administration’s own hamstringing of the USPS prior to the election. If Trump wants to whine about the process, he has himself at least partially to blame. 
 

Regarding the impeachment: This was in no way an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. Let me repeat that. The impeachment was not an attempt to OVERTURN the 2016 election. If Trump had been removed from office, you would’ve ended up with Pence, not Hillary, in the Oval Office. Think about that for a minute. If the Dems had succeeded, you would’ve had an extremely conservative guy who is capable of acting like an adult human being, who doesn’t tweet a shitstorm every morning, who wouldn’t fire a cabinet member every other day, who is not a pathological liar, and is far less polarizing than the Donald as the POTUS. Do you think Pence might’ve done a better job at unifying the country over the COVID crisis? I do. I’ll say it one more time. Impeachment was not an attempt to overturn an election and removing Trump from office would’ve been a GIFT to Republicans. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I must not be understanding something. What am I missing?

It's not that low skill employers are a textbook monopsony, rather that it explains market inefficiencies in the labor market when modeled as a monopsony/oligopsony. People who argue for free market principles in the economy usually agree with US antitrust law companies that were used against anticompetitive companies that were modeled as monopolies/oligopolies but usually have not heard of monopsony. In the same way they were not truly a monopoly (there were still competitors), the low skill wage labor market also is not a pure monopsony. 

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

It just seems to me that as you lower the wage you're willing to work for, the greater the number of potential employers becomes?

Read more into it beyond 10 min, it's not intuitive at first but it will make sense from a market principles perspective. I'll try here to explain it best:

You can't look at it individually, because the wage for the group determines the wage that gets offered. Say 100 people are willing to work for $5 an hour at Walmart or McDonald's at your local highway town. Now let's say 200 are willing to work for $8. The companies will not offer $5 to 100 employees and $8 to the rest, it must offer $8 to all 200 if it wants to hire all the employees. Let's say each employee makes them $8 dollars an hour. The competitive equilibrium in this case is 200 employees, but they actually make more profit hiring just 100 at $5 (+$300 excess profit). I'm using fixed revenue as apposed to marginal revenue for simplicity just to show how it works, hopefully that's clear enough. But the point is low skill labor markets would take advantage of the people willing to work for much less than minimum wage (which is even more true in immigration heavy country like US) to edge out a profit larger than they could have at the actual competitive equilibrium.

The reason I preface this argument with a self destruct option when employment lowers more than 3% is because I don't expect the general public to understand monopsony theory to justify minimum wage increases, and also because the research is not certain where that minimum wage should be. It will obviously break down at some point; in my example if the minimum wage is set at $9 it would actually lower employment. There is a limit to where it would not affect employment depending on local conditions, but my main point is simply to reject the notion that any increase in minimum wage always decreases employment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that even low-skill employers like Walmart or McDonald's have people who are making different amounts of money, right?  That not every employee is making minimum wage, and that not every employee is making the same amount as every other employee?

It would be quite feasible for a company with the kind of pricing power you are suggesting to hire 100 people at $5/hr and then 100 more at $8/hr.  Where are the people willing to settle for $5/hr going to go if they are unhappy with the fact their counterparts make more than them?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t say that the impeachment investigations and Russia stuff was an attempt to flip the call of the 2016 vote. So we agree on that.

We will never know about the pence vs trump question for the 2016-2020 time frame. Because it didn’t happen. We can argue all we want but it will be just that. And to convince me it would have been better you would have to convince me that Pence would have done a better job and with what ruler we would measure that job since by many accounts the country had unmatched prosperity in the last 4 years covid not withstanding. And let me say it Trump didn’t cause Corona and no Dem has come up with any plan different or better than what was actually executed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Prozac said:

A couple things:

Everyone knew this election would be different due to the pandemic. The “blue shift” was predicted long before the election by anyone who cared to ponder the fact that the president’s supporters were likely to vote at the polls, while Biden supporters were far more likely to vote by mail. Pennsylvania law (passed by Republicans) meant that mail in votes there could not even be processed until Tuesday (other states have laws that allowed processing much earlier-hence Florida’s relatively early result). This process was further hampered by the Trump administration’s own hamstringing of the USPS prior to the election. If Trump wants to whine about the process, he has himself at least partially to blame. 
 

Regarding the impeachment: This was in no way an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. Let me repeat that. The impeachment was not an attempt to OVERTURN the 2016 election. If Trump had been removed from office, you would’ve ended up with Pence, not Hillary, in the Oval Office. Think about that for a minute. If the Dems had succeeded, you would’ve had an extremely conservative guy who is capable of acting like an adult human being, who doesn’t tweet a shitstorm every morning, who wouldn’t fire a cabinet member every other day, who is not a pathological liar, and is far less polarizing than the Donald as the POTUS. Do you think Pence might’ve done a better job at unifying the country over the COVID crisis? I do. I’ll say it one more time. Impeachment was not an attempt to overturn an election and removing Trump from office would’ve been a GIFT to Republicans. 

Also...it turns out campaigning across the US telling your followers mail in ballots are a fraud and to not use them...results in fewer mail in ballots for your side.  Imagine that!

The impeachment was really just getting all the Republicans on record to defend all Trump's actions.  It will be politically useful in the upcoming years when all of them claim to have been against him despite carrying his water for 4 years.  Republicans eat their own, and it's only a matter of time before Trump is on the plate.  Just look at McCain, Romney, Bush Jr to some extent, and pretty much any office holder that isn't gushingly supportive of Trump.  My bet is in 10-15 years you won't be able to find anyone who admits to voting for Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You are aware that even low-skill employers like Walmart or McDonald's have people who are making different amounts of money, right?  That not every employee is making minimum wage, and that not every employee is making the same amount as every other employee?

It would be quite feasible for a company with the kind of pricing power you are suggesting to hire 100 people at $5/hr and then 100 more at $8/hr.  Where are the people willing to settle for $5/hr going to go if they are unhappy with the fact their counterparts make more than them?  

Absolutely, it's a way simplistic explanation to show how the mechanism works, I'm not going to go into all the caveats that make it fall somewhere in the middle in reality such as frictional unemployment, money velocity, experience levels, etc. The company would never hire the 100 more at $8 dollars in this simple example I gave, since that would lower the profit. It would simply leave it at $5 (or somewhere in between when you consider marginal revenue instead of fixed revenue) to maximize profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Guardian said:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/pennsylvania-100000-ballots-with-implausible-return-dates_3572942.html

Here’s some widespread voter fraud. If the states can figure it out it goes to the house. One vote per state.

There is a slim chance that Trump can still win.

Slim? If the media says slim at worst it is a coin flip. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Widespread voter fraud, like Russian collusion, didn't happen.  But continue to tilt at windmills till your Parlor account is approved by Q.

Haha. Well I was just putting an article on here for discussion.

But if you want to make fun of me have at it. Here’s some fodder.. what is Parlor and Q? No idea what you are talking about.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you informed individuals...please enlighten me on what I’m apparently missing wrr the aforementioned MIT Professor’s video which clearly establishes election fraud occurred in MI. Why is this not a topic of debates here? The case they presented seems overwhelming to me. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...