U.S. to close..

[GordMay]

FWIW:
The very conservative Heritage Foundation lists 1,302 proven instances of voter fraud.
Election Fraud Database ➥ https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

The White House, citing the Heritage Foundation, only lists 1,071 proven instances of voter fraud.
➥ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...fraudcases.pdf


Note: The year indicated in the database is not necessarily the year of the offense.
Ie: The first on the list:
Arizona 2020 Randy Allen Jumper Criminal Conviction Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots, Duplicate Voting
Under 'details': Randy Allen Jumper voted twice in the 2016 general election. He voted by absentee ballot in Arizona and again by absentee ballot in Nevada. He pleaded guilty to attempted illegal voting, a class 6 felony. He was sentenced to two years probation, fined $5,000, and is barred from voting in Arizona.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... or pretend that there's fraud that must be investigated, despite a complete lack of evidence.

Got me boxed in a corner...

I can't prove there's fraud since I don't have any evidence but I can't get any evidence if there is no investigation, so you can claim I'm "pretending" and mock the idea that there may be fraud discouraging anyone else from asking for an investigation which makes it even less likely to get evidence...and so on...

Just they way those in power like it.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

As far as the nice graph from the 1970's, that is more likely a relic of WWII. The US, Europe and Japan (with Canada and Australia secondarily) were by far the centers of industrial power. WWII destroyed Europe and Japan's industrial base and drastically reduced the working age male population (just being honest...at the time men were the bread winners). So with the massive rebuilding and limited work force, capitalist pressures, drove up wages. It was simple supply and demand for workers.

In some ways yes, but it also happened by design. Government policy matters, and the policy of the day saw a 95% marginal tax rate on the highest incomes, and an overall economic policy which aimed at full employment. Unions and collective bargaining were actively supported.

At around the mid 1970s those big policy drives began to shift to lowering taxes and controlling inflation. Unions were weakened. Capital, not labour, was prioritized, which ushered in the era of deregulation and a return to more laissez-faire economics.

So macro events do matter. WWII was huge, but the current state of massive inequality was not arrived at by accident, or through some natural force of nature. It was, and continues to be, the result of deliberate public policy choices. These policies favour capital over labour, and rich over poor.

When looked at through the broad historic lens, the post war economic boom that actually did float all boats is more the aberration than than the rule. If you've read Thomas Piketty, you'll know his observation is that it is more normal to see wealth concentrated in the hands of the few vs the many.

It seems that we're just moving back to the norm where there are a few lords and masses of serfs.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Use taxes (fuel taxes etc) don't come close to paying 100% of the cost of building and maintaining roads and highways.

Infrastructure neglect - a different topic. Btw, getting busy with these much neglected infrastructure projects should be a no-brainer for getting people back to work after this pandemic mess. You'd have at least something to show for all the govt money put out.

I know how they are paid, no where outside of a gov contract would anyone pay that much for that level of work and accept that level of quality.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you still have more fruit in your larder than you can ever use... does it matter all that much?

Yes, yes it does. I’m not your slave, what the fruits of my labor produce does not belong to you. If I want to make millions, trade it for gold and launch it into the sun, that’s my call.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People have already listed many of the benefits we all get from living in an organized, lawful society. Perhaps the one you're most overlooking is that you're supported by a structure that makes it easier and safer for you to generate wealth in. An educated and healthy* workforce. The infrastructure that brings your workers and supplies into your place of business, and takes your output away to your distributers and customers. The laws and courts that make it harder to rip each other off. A big market of people with enough discretionary income to choose your offering (... or a captive rentier/monopoly situation where they have no choice, but let's not go there).

Except I’m charged for 100% of that, but I only get about a 15% benefit after all the waste, disfunction, corruption, crime, etc.

For the most part the police make more issues than they solve, I have had issues where I needed their assistance, when minutes counted they where half a hour away, but if you go 67 in a 55 they are RIGHT on you, they also don’t actually stop crime or even have a duty to protect you, actually if someone breaks into your house and attacks your family it will be up to you to defend yourself, even if you do what’s needed, obviously so, the “justice system” will still jam you up and likely partially ruin your life.

Goooo big gov society!! Lol

And without the gov running schools, folks would still be getting educated in their the craft they would one day call a career, or formally, and the losers would still be losers.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Without all this... where's the market for your business? How much would you have to expend for the missing security and logistics? Basically, your concepts of freedom and opting out just leads to feudalism. A few will have the brains, ambition and ruthlessness to get to the top, and the rest are just vassals subject to their dictates. Are you so confident that you'd be a lord in this system of yours?

My business would do just fine.

The “security” get in the way more than it helps as I already covered, logistics?? There is a reason when you need to get a document somewhere you don’t use USPS.

And no, the more ambitious types will still need people to make the inventions, to drive the trucks, to build the homes, and where there is a need someone will fill it, you will have to pay for their time and you might be a genius, but no one is going to work for you for free.

And if you suck to work for, you’ll have to pay more, or go under, if your product or company sucks, folks won’t give you their business and you’ll go under.

Free market does wonders.

All the gov should be is a steward like figure, and a watch dog on the shores.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

*societies with universal single-payer healthcare have more mobile, dynamic and HEALTHY workforces. Nobody's locked into useless or awful jobs for fear of losing healthcare benefits.
... it's debatable whether this is truly the case for everyone. It's much harder to go from nothing to wealth these days. And let's face it - Galt's Gulch is a bigger fantasy than Marxism. If everyone is an entrepreneurial genius and no-one's a dull but content worker, you'd have a short-lived nation of starving geniuses. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur. Many would be content to go put in their 8 hours at a job, then spend the rest of the time with their families, friends and their little hobbies. Society needs these people. Why shouldn't they be able to live that life? There's more than enough wealth around to reward the risk-takers handsomely AND pay the plebes decently. And support those unable to work, cos they buy stuff too.

Yeah, I’d much rather have our health care, Ive seen what it looks like in other places, no thanks.

And again, if you’re cool only signing the back of pay checks and never the front, lots of people make lots of money working for others, you just need to have a skill someone wants, just like for all of history.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Actually, it often is the case. Particularly with modern medicine. The medical field gets so excited about a cure, they don't look at the full picture.

Cancer is a common scenario. The treatments often make life a living hell. In some cases, they may even accelerate death if the cure is unsuccessful but in some cases it does effect a cure for the cancer...at least for a little while...before the next round of treatments.

In many cases, eventually the patient decides the cure is worse than the disease. They aren't playing word games. It's reality. Only in recent years has the medical community come to the realization that the option to forego the "cure" may be better for the patient depending on the specifics.

Much more difficult to analyses is the current Corona situation. We don't know how effective many of these responses (aka: cures) are and we don't know the exact amount of collateral damage the "cures" cause. So to simply apply the "cure" with no consideration of the damage it does is stupidity.

I've cited before the metrics number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH); where NNH encapsulates collateral direct/indirect damage within the same person. Prior to release these numbers are known (where NNT doesn't tend to shift much, NNH may drop, making it "less favorable" an intervention). Where NNH<NNT, it's a poison.

Also, frankly to get approved by insurance, the cost per survival period is calculated, where this is pretty straight forward = survival in stage 3 vs cost to administer over projected course. For sure I don't like the presence of many/most of those salvage treatments in the world, and I'm almost always an advocate against them.

So insofar as we have metrics (subject to change, rarely significant (e.g. Vioxx)) on what constitutes a cure/harm per disease, it's not nebulous what does and does not constitute a cure (better put....effective treatment, cost-effective as much as possible).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Long lines have been around pretty much since the start of the country for Presidential elections. If you are in line before the poll closes, you get to vote. It doesn't make sense to spend huge amounts on a single day event that only happens once every 4 years when it hasn't been proven to effect the outcome (that was your standard for refusing to even consider ID rules).

Long lines and hours-long waits do discourage voting. Expense?? What do you think the tab for all the fake fraud legal manoevres will be?

Long lines aren't necessary. Also look where those long lines were. Many Guccis or Coach handbags in those long lineups?

...not sure how sending it to the courts to confirm is fraud but hey...

Most if not all of the approaches to the courts were based on empty, baseless claims of voting fraud. So not technically fraud... ok, you pick a name. Out of court, the constant public claims of massive voter fraud were, um fraudulent, no?

The game wasn't to simply perform due diligence, it was to create and amplify the public perception that voting fraud had occurred. In such an environment, it becomes more possible for a sympathetic state government to claim that there's significant public distrust in the election results, so the state is justified in ignoring the results and selecting/directing their EC electors to vote as the the state gov directs. It was always a longshot, but based on how early Dear Leader started talking publicly about fraud, it was clearly Plan B (for Biden win).

You're OK with this?

[Yihang]

There has always been some fraud but not enough to tip an election. According to this there has been about 1000 proven cases of election fraud in history.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...fraudcases.pdf


There is no good to come out of this for the trump camp. If they prove there was wide spread organised fraud then it is VERY VERY bad for the country and democracy.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Got me boxed in a corner...

I can't prove there's fraud since I don't have any evidence but I can't get any evidence if there is no investigation...

Lemme stop you right there. Sometimes I might think you're on crack ( -joking! a hypothetical) but my thinking so wouldn't justify a pre-dawn no-knock visit from the boys in black.

Why should a serious investigation be launched on a hypothetical fear? As shown earlier, any significant voting fraud leaves a statistical fingerprint, so it would be evident to the folks who run and process the election results. Your amateur sleuths are circulating a list of 10,000 names and a sampling of 31 shows no demonstrable fraud.

I've never taken you for a sycophant. You know what's going on. If you didn't drink the Koolaid, there's no need to be spitting it on us.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Yihang

There has always been some fraud but not enough to tip an election. According to this there has been about 1000 proven cases of election fraud in history.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whi...fraudcases.pdf
...

See my post #901. ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3280967
The Whitehouse can’t even get that right. They claim 1,071 cases,
but their source, the Heritage Foundation, lists 1,302 proven instances.

[Lake-Effect]

A couple for SSue:

Great achievement is usually born of great sacrifice, and is never the result of selfishness.
- Napoleon Hill

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
- Honore de Balzac

[atoll]

all over now,the fat lady is singing..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxBsjph-Lk4

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Concept and reality are often wildly different.



Just read an article on how we should tax the wealthy more on Social Security because they are bleeding the system dry (journalists words). And in the interest of "fairness", we should tax the rich more.



Yet, the journalist never considered that:

- A low income earner who averages $1000/month earnings has 90% of his wages replaced with Social Security.

- A higher income earner who averages $11,400/month (max taxable income) typically only gets about 28% replaced.



So the high earner doesn't get even 1/3 as much per dollar put in but he's not paying his fair share?



In the real world the concept of "redistribution" is code for buy votes by taking money from the rich and giving to those you hope will vote for you.

Social security isn’t intended to be a retirement plan but a safety net. If you’re making 12k month you should be planning for retirement.
A tax system that lets me pay less percentage wise than someone who makes far less or even $$ wise less and leaves them barely covering food is unfair. And sure I’ll bet someone will say just write a bigger check to taxes is is someone not getting the point.

[pdjb]

Uncle joe will save us and the world?

[bletso]

nah, no one can. He was not the best but the only one who could beat the T.

All our geriatric candidates have had there go and we have made a right mess of it.

My own opinion is that our system has become totally morally corrupt. As already pointed out, extremism rules the day.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've done enough traveling to call BS on 3rd world poverty in the US. You clearly haven't seen much of the 3rd world. Many places they would consider it a huge improvement in lifestyle to live like our poor.

Also, most 1st world countries have similar issues with poverty for a small percentage of the population. Most of the real poverty (ie homeless and living in the streets) is related to mental health and drug problems. Playing Robin Hood ain't going to solve that.

About the only place I haven't seen this issue is in some of the middle east countries but that's because their poor are not allowed to be citizens and if they have mental or substance abuse issues, they just get shipped home (actual citizens with these issues tend to be locked up out of sight at home).

No its nowhere near 3rd world poverty - Wonder through an Indian slum and you will know what poverty is and by some parts of the world they are probably considered well off, but funnily enough they are much happier and at peace with themselves than many of the rich in the Western World, all dosed up on anti this and upper that, whilst seeing their shrink once per week.



On the other hand wonder down to downtown LA at night through skid row and there is a pretty gnarly example of poverty in the West.