The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Political discussions
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12251
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: The Official

Postby GannonFan » Fri May 24, 2019 7:04 am

AZGrizFan wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
I didn't say he didn't win according the system we have. But he got a lower percentage of the overall vote among US Citizens than Romney did. He's not the choice of "The People." I do think what happened in 2016 confirmed, if there was any previous doubt, that we need to get rid of the Electoral College system.

I am "prepared" for 6 more years if it happens. But let's hope that it doesn't. And it's a reasonable hope. We are not talking about a guy who is supported by a majority of the People. We are talking about a guy who has consistently NOT been supported by a majority of the People.


What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.


Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16370
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby houndawg » Sat May 25, 2019 4:10 am

Ibanez wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:So what’s the “over” on the remaining lifespan of the George-Kellyanne Conway marriage? :lol:

If Trump is re-elected, two years max. :twocents:

:lol: If Carville and his wife can make it work....maybe the Conways have a shot.


Unless George gets that Lasik surgery and finds out he's married to a Northern Pike. :coffee:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19887
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby CID1990 » Sat May 25, 2019 4:48 am

GannonFan wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.


Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.


Its a simple concept about a representative republic that many supposedly smart people dont get.

A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16370
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: The Official

Postby houndawg » Sat May 25, 2019 12:48 pm

GannonFan wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.


Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.


Its there to make sure the Establishment gets the final word. The dfounding fathers were not big fans of "one man, one vote". :coffee:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 16969
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby JohnStOnge » Sat May 25, 2019 1:11 pm

Guys, if the Electoral College worked as it was conceived we'd never have something like Trump happen. I actually would be more comfortable with how it was conceived. As it was conceived there would not be things like Party primaries and national state by state popular votes. The State legislatures would choose electors. Those electors would then engage in deliberations to choose a President without necessarily being committed to any particular candidate beforehand. They would pick someone. One premise of it was that these electors would be more educated and informed than the general population. The general population would have a role but it wouldn't be "I will vote for Trump in my State then all the electors from my State will go vote for Trump."

The concept is described in Federalist 68:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.


So the people choose some smart people capable of "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" then those people choose the President. If it was like THAT there is NO way someone like Trump would ever be President. We would be protected from such lunacy.

What we have now is a distorted populist system where it's populist and you have all of the disadvantages of what the framers were trying to avoid AND you can also have someone most people don't want as President end up as President.

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 16969
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: The Official

Postby JohnStOnge » Sat May 25, 2019 1:25 pm

CID1990 wrote:
A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 16969
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby JohnStOnge » Sat May 25, 2019 1:39 pm

Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21693
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby Ivytalk » Sat May 25, 2019 3:22 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.


In other words, you’re one of those “living Constitution” motherfuckers. Some conservative/Libertarian you are. :jack:
Don’t get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. — John “Bernie!” St. Onge 11/16/18

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14879
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby BDKJMU » Sat May 25, 2019 4:16 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:Guys, if the Electoral College worked as it was conceived we'd never have something like Trump happen. I actually would be more comfortable with how it was conceived. As it was conceived there would not be things like Party primaries and national state by state popular votes. The State legislatures would choose electors. Those electors would then engage in deliberations to choose a President without necessarily being committed to any particular candidate beforehand. They would pick someone. One premise of it was that these electors would be more educated and informed than the general population. The general population would have a role but it wouldn't be "I will vote for Trump in my State then all the electors from my State will go vote for Trump."

The concept is described in Federalist 68:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.


So the people choose some smart people capable of "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" then those people choose the President. If it was like THAT there is NO way someone like Trump would ever be President. We would be protected from such lunacy.

What we have now is a distorted populist system where it's populist and you have all of the disadvantages of what the framers were trying to avoid AND you can also have someone most people don't want as President end up as President.

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.


JohnStOnge wrote:Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.

The sum of JSO's last 3 back to back to back posts. You know JSO, for almost everyone here, for all the drivel you post, its:
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19887
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby CID1990 » Sat May 25, 2019 8:38 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.


Irrelevant.

Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?

You have twisted yourself into a contradictory knot and you are blind to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19887
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby CID1990 » Sat May 25, 2019 9:09 pm

Thanks Trump!

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/72375796 ... witter.com

:tiptoe:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 21693
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Dela-Where?

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby Ivytalk » Sun May 26, 2019 4:35 am

JSO is the Analjelly of this thread. But for him, it might have died long ago.
Don’t get me wrong. I am generally a fan of tax increases. — John “Bernie!” St. Onge 11/16/18

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 16969
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby JohnStOnge » Sun May 26, 2019 7:54 am

Ivytalk wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.


In other words, you’re one of those “living Constitution” motherfuckers. Some conservative/Libertarian you are. :jack:


I did not say we can "interpret" our way out of it. I am only a "living Constitution" person in the sense that I recognize that the Constitution includes a process for changing it. I favor amending the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College system. I don't see it happening in my lifetime if ever. But if it were to happen it would happen according to the Constitution. The problem I have isn't with changing the Consitution if the changing is through the process provided. The problem I have is with judges effectively changing it through "interpretation."
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 16969
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: The Official

Postby JohnStOnge » Sun May 26, 2019 8:10 am

CID1990 wrote:
Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.


I grasp the concept. I just don't agree with the idea of, in today's context, thinking of it in terms of States instead of as people. Right now we have a situation where the majority of the People can have the desires of a minority of the People foisted upon them under circumstances where the votes of people in small States count more than the votes of people in large States do.

And, again, there is that problem with the fact that a very substantial proportion of the population is disenfranchised by the state by state "winner take all" principle combined with the fact that many if not most States are not close. The thing where a person's Presidential vote is meaningless, for example, if they are a Republican living in California.

A very simple concept: Each person's vote should be equal in value and impact to every other person's vote.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?


I have never wondered about why heartland voters voted against their own interests. I do have beliefs about why people voted for Trump. For instance I have beliefs about why White Evangelical Christians did what they did. And I'm more concerned about an individual person who is a United States citizen living in Louisiana having their voice effectively silenced when to Presidential elections because they favor the Democrats than I am about Louisiana having its voice silenced. The Senate is there to equalize the voices of all States in a powerful sub-branch of government. Minority voice is fine. Minority rule is not. From January 2016 through January 2018 we had minority rule. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: The Official

Postby HI54UNI » Sun May 26, 2019 8:16 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.


I grasp the concept. I just don't agree with the idea of, in today's context, thinking of it in terms of States instead of as people. Right now we have a situation where the majority of the People can have the desires of a minority of the People foisted upon them under circumstances where the votes of people in small States count more than the votes of people in large States do.

And, again, there is that problem with the fact that a very substantial proportion of the population is disenfranchised by the state by state "winner take all" principle combined with the fact that many if not most States are not close. The thing where a person's Presidential vote is meaningless, for example, if they are a Republican living in California.

A very simple concept: Each person's vote should be equal in value and impact to every other person's vote.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?


I have never wondered about why heartland voters voted against their own interests. I do have beliefs about why people voted for Trump. For instance I have beliefs about why White Evangelical Christians did what they did. And I'm more concerned about an individual person who is a United States citizen living in Louisiana having their voice effectively silenced when to Presidential elections because they favor the Democrats than I am about Louisiana having its voice silenced. The Senate is there to equalize the voices of all States in a powerful sub-branch of government. Minority voice is fine. Minority rule is not. From January 2016 through January 2018 we had minority rule. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen.


So how do you explain why your white, evangelical christian wife voted for Trump?
Image

All my posts are satire.

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 49790
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby AZGrizFan » Sun May 26, 2019 8:18 am

It’s not a democracy, John. That’s the part you can’t seem to grasp. It was SPECIFICALLY set up this way for this very reason. It is NOT a national election. It’s 50 STATE elections. You may not like it, but it’s worked perfectly and exactly the way the founding fathers set it up to work.
"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 49790
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby AZGrizFan » Sun May 26, 2019 8:20 am

JohnStOnge wrote:Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.


As always, missing the bigger picture economically. You do you, John. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

css75
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1692
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:45 pm

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby css75 » Sun May 26, 2019 8:40 am

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

I will post this again for JSO benefit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

User avatar
mainejeff
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4472
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:43 am
I am a fan of: Maine
A.K.A.: mainejeff

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby mainejeff » Sun May 26, 2019 3:51 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.


In other words, you’re one of those “living Constitution” motherfuckers. Some conservative/Libertarian you are. :jack:


Yeah.....god forbid he be more concerned with reality than relic. :jack:

:coffee:
Go Black Bears!

User avatar
mainejeff
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4472
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:43 am
I am a fan of: Maine
A.K.A.: mainejeff

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby mainejeff » Sun May 26, 2019 3:54 pm

Will Conks still be arguing for the Electoral College when the losing candidate wins the popular vote by 5 million?....10 million? Some system! :roll: :roll: :roll:

:coffee:
Go Black Bears!

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 49790
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby AZGrizFan » Sun May 26, 2019 4:46 pm

mainejeff wrote:Will Conks still be arguing for the Electoral College when the losing candidate wins the popular vote by 5 million?....10 million? Some system! :roll: :roll: :roll:

:coffee:


You trophy generation motherfuckers....as soon as you lose something and don’t get your way, you want to change the rules.

Electoral college
Supreme Court nominees


WAAAAAAAAAAH!!! :cry: have a **** juice box, junior.
"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40862
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby kalm » Sun May 26, 2019 6:22 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
mainejeff wrote:Will Conks still be arguing for the Electoral College when the losing candidate wins the popular vote by 5 million?....10 million? Some system! :roll: :roll: :roll:

:coffee:


You trophy generation motherfuckers....as soon as you lose something and don’t get your way, you want to change the rules.

Electoral college
Supreme Court nominees


WAAAAAAAAAAH!!! :cry: have a **** juice box, junior.


Which generation was handing out the trophies?
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 49790
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby AZGrizFan » Sun May 26, 2019 7:41 pm

kalm wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
You trophy generation motherfuckers....as soon as you lose something and don’t get your way, you want to change the rules.

Electoral college
Supreme Court nominees


WAAAAAAAAAAH!!! :cry: have a **** juice box, junior.


Which generation was handing out the trophies?


Which generation has the hurt feelers?
"Ah ****. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19887
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby CID1990 » Sun May 26, 2019 8:09 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.


I grasp the concept. I just don't agree with the idea of, in today's context, thinking of it in terms of States instead of as people. Right now we have a situation where the majority of the People can have the desires of a minority of the People foisted upon them under circumstances where the votes of people in small States count more than the votes of people in large States do.

And, again, there is that problem with the fact that a very substantial proportion of the population is disenfranchised by the state by state "winner take all" principle combined with the fact that many if not most States are not close. The thing where a person's Presidential vote is meaningless, for example, if they are a Republican living in California.

A very simple concept: Each person's vote should be equal in value and impact to every other person's vote.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?


I have never wondered about why heartland voters voted against their own interests. I do have beliefs about why people voted for Trump. For instance I have beliefs about why White Evangelical Christians did what they did. And I'm more concerned about an individual person who is a United States citizen living in Louisiana having their voice effectively silenced when to Presidential elections because they favor the Democrats than I am about Louisiana having its voice silenced. The Senate is there to equalize the voices of all States in a powerful sub-branch of government. Minority voice is fine. Minority rule is not. From January 2016 through January 2018 we had minority rule. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen.


Not in a Republic, John

The states are sovereign where they are not constrained by the Constitution.

You would remove that sovereignty, and states would be justified in seceding if you and your fellow travelers got your way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 40862
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: klam
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

Postby kalm » Sun May 26, 2019 8:50 pm

AZGrizFan wrote:
kalm wrote:
Which generation was handing out the trophies?


Which generation has the hurt feelers?


Which generation is kicking the ladder down behind them?
Image
Image
Image


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CAA Flagship, Col Hogan, Pwns and 36 guests