***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[EddieDoyers]

Keeping cash around like that is stupid unless you're a drug dealer
Because
1. It could be lost in a fire or disaster
2. You can't earn interest if you don't keep it in the bank
3. You can engage in short selling using that amount and make huge amount of profits where you can retain that $70,000 and buy the Cuban or hemi at the same time if you make some good moves in the market.
4. In your long term investments of that cash, you can retain dividends and increase the value of your account.

I don't know if Ninja does that, but this is a good financial lesson for anyone. Warren Buffet preaches this type of investing.

 

[ninjahood]

I mean when you worried about CAFE laws being repealed to keep a car within your price range, it might be time to reassess some things. Just saying

umm no....da cafe laws being repealed has to do with da continued development of V8 muscle cars in da future without punitive taxes or fines 

from da government that would discourage brands from making them anymore...has nothing to do with what i can afford 

some of ya so worried about whats in my pockets that ya missing da whole show.

i already make good money, hell if i went interstate i'd instantly make 6 figs easy, but i choose to stay close to him.

this is why you need to stay outta da car talk with me...you stay sounding out da loop.

 

[son nelly]

-You are confusing disenfranchisement with loss of political power. They are not the same, not matter how many times you repeat it

-You're being dense, because I have said in nearly every post that the locking of the House seats is what is driving the disproportionate amount of power. You cry about fairness, but in your world fairness means giving rural areas have more power, not the same amount, but more. So now rural ares have a disproportional about of power in the Senate, in the house, and picking the presidency, this is somehow fairness in your world.

-Once again conjecture. Your conflating a Presidential popular vote with Federally ran elections. Once again, they are not the same thing.

We can still have state ran elections, because more elections are not Federal. All that has to happen is that the sate popular vote counts towards a national pool.

And Federal voting laws might be a good thing, because the Federal government seems much better and insuring equal participation than red states.

I am fully aware of the drawback to a popular vote, but these drawback are not unique, they just flip ones that already exist. Things will favor urban/Democratic/minority voters more (just because all voted will get equal weight) than favoring white/Republican/rural voters. So please miss me with the idea that is this such a drawback. It is just one side losing a built in advantage. Oh and for this to be a bad thing ignore checks and balances also

I'm saying that a popular vote would be disproportionate as well, just in a different way. And it IS disenfranchisement, the feeling that it doesn't matter isn't unique to one state or one area or one race. Rural areas don't have MORE power,  they just have more than you specifically  want. Dems realistically can lock CA/NY and get FLA and have almost half the game won. It would be even more that way with a popular vote.

You think it favors Minorities, I think it'd screw them over pretty bad. Obama's elections show that if Blacks showed up they'd crush the Republicans Electorally without needing to beat him that bad with the popular vote. Romney was much closer with the Pop vote than with the Electoral vote. And you think it'd be better without it? That level of turnout all the time would make Electoral system favor dems every time. I don't know why you'd bet on minorities in a straight up vote. You also gotta realize there's Dems in Texas and Repubs in NY/CA that realize its pointless, and letting the latter have a chance to get out could be disastrous. 

And Federal Voting laws would be hellish. There'd probably be some middle ground, but the Lax laws in typically blue states and strict laws in typically red states would be compromised, and again, I don't think that'd favor minorities.

The Grays and Reds would end up with something in the middle.

So you miss ME with the crap. You want to amend the constitution and change the entire system with how the president is determined without thinking of who is going to be making those changes, checks and balances or not. It don't favor us. I'm way more confident with what we got. The only issue is we cant get Obama level turnouts every time. It'd be game over if we could.

 

[ninjahood]

There is nothing wrong with how Ninja chooses to live his life.

It is the fact he openly mocks others, especially those in similar situations to him for how they lives theirs, that makes him so offensive.

Like one time I mocked him on being public assistance.

you just gonna keep repeating da lie or and over right?

 clown **** for real....

there are millionaires who got da same arraignment i got, maybe you need to learn da actual law.

 

[Xennial]

 

 

[ninjahood]

 The world is moving away from coal and fossil fuels whether you like or not.

sike, fossil fuels will still be around long after we're all gone, that's for sure.

you can't even power da commerical airline business on anything but fossil fuels.

u think jumbo planes just gonna run on sun and wind....ha.

 

[ryda421]

you just gonna keep repeating da lie or and over right?

 clown **** for real....

there are millionaires who got da same arraignment i got, maybe you need to learn da actual law.

which millionaires are living in a shack? which millionaires do you know that have mom dukes finding it difficult to get to the bathroom? which millionaire you know that cleans their shoes in the kitchen sink? millionaires have overhead, that's how they became millionaires. takes money to make money.

you going to use your mom's mechanic as an example?

 

[RustyShackleford]

-You are confusing disenfranchisement with loss of political power. They are not the same, not matter how many times you repeat it


-You're being dense, because I have said in nearly every post that the locking of the House seats is what is driving the disproportionate amount of power. You cry about fairness, but in your world fairness means giving rural areas have more power, not the same amount, but more. So now rural ares have a disproportional about of power in the Senate, in the house, and picking the presidency, this is somehow fairness in your world.


-Once again conjecture. Your conflating a Presidential popular vote with Federally ran elections. Once again, they are not the same thing.


We can still have state ran elections, because more elections are not Federal. All that has to happen is that the sate popular vote counts towards a national pool.


And Federal voting laws might be a good thing, because the Federal government seems much better and insuring equal participation than red states.


I am fully aware of the drawback to a popular vote, but these drawback are not unique, they just flip ones that already exist. Things will favor urban/Democratic/minority voters more (just because all voted will get equal weight) than favoring white/Republican/rural voters. So please miss me with the idea that is this such a drawback. It is just one side losing a built in advantage. Oh and for this to be a bad thing ignore checks and balances also

I'm saying that a popular vote would be disproportionate as well, just in a different way. And it IS disenfranchisement, the feeling that it doesn't matter isn't unique to one state or one area or one race. Rural areas don't have MORE power,  they just have more than you specifically  want. Dems realistically can lock CA/NY and get FLA and have almost half the game won. It would be even more that way with a popular vote.

You think it favors Minorities, I think it'd screw them over pretty bad. Obama's elections show that if Blacks showed up they'd crush the Republicans Electorally without needing to beat him that bad with the popular vote. Romney was much closer with the Pop vote than with the Electoral vote. And you think it'd be better without it? That level of turnout all the time would make Electoral system favor dems every time. I don't know why you'd bet on minorities in a straight up vote. You also gotta realize there's Dems in Texas and Repubs in NY/CA that realize its pointless, and letting the latter have a chance to get out could be disastrous. 

And Federal Voting laws would be hellish. There'd probably be some middle ground, but the Lax laws in typically blue states and strict laws in typically red states would be compromised, and again, I don't think that'd favor minorities.

The Grays and Reds would end up with something in the middle.





So you miss ME with the crap. You want to amend the constitution and change the entire system with how the president is determined without thinking of who is going to be making those changes, checks and balances or not. It don't favor us. I'm way more confident with what we got. The only issue is we cant get Obama level turnouts every time. It'd be game over if we could.

You still don't know what being disenfranchised is.

You seem to not understand what the word disproportionate means as well.

The Romney popular vote argument is stupid. A winner is a winner.

Pure conjecture on the Federal voting laws, that wouldn't even need to be in place.

You just repeating a whole bunch of nothing at this point, and still talking pass me.

Responding in anymore detail to you as this point would be a waste of time.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I mean when you worried about CAFE laws being repealed to keep a car within your price range, it might be time to reassess some things. Just saying

umm no....da cafe laws being repealed has to do with da continued development of V8 muscle cars in da future without punitive taxes or fines 

from da government that would discourage brands from making them anymore...has nothing to do with what i can afford 

some of ya so worried about whats in my pockets that ya missing da whole show.

i already make good money, hell if i went interstate i'd instantly make 6 figs easy, but i choose to stay close to him.

this is why you need to stay outta da car talk with me...you stay sounding out da loop.

We are not talking cars though, we are talking ambition, a subject you have very little knowledge about.

 

[ninjahood]

you just gonna keep repeating da lie or and over right?

 clown **** for real....

there are millionaires who got da same arraignment i got, maybe you need to learn da actual law.

which millionaires are living in a shack? which millionaires do you know that have mom dukes finding it difficult to get to the bathroom? which millionaire you know that cleans their shoes in the kitchen sink? millionaires have overhead, that's how they became millionaires. takes money to make money.

you going to use your mom's mechanic as an example?

u need to ryda off my lap b. jeez

as far as rent controlled APT, joints is gold plated. i could be clocking 6 figs & still be able to keep it.

ask Al Sharpton & Charlie Rangel, or alot of upper east/west side residents.

 

[EddieDoyers]

 

Just because a couple of "old school people" do it, doesn't mean it's the best financial planning
A lot of money launderers and drug dealers practice storing only cash, does that mean it's good to do so? Eventually most of those guys lose it because of theft or get arrested and lose most of it to law enforcement.

And again, I don't know what Ninja does in the stock market other than saying invest in coal, which has no specifics like what mr. trump gives in his speeches.

 

[RustyShackleford]

There is nothing wrong with how Ninja chooses to live his life.


It is the fact he openly mocks others, especially those in similar situations to him for how they lives theirs, that makes him so offensive.


Like one time I mocked him on being public assistance.

you just gonna keep repeating da lie or and over right?

 clown **** for real....

there are millionaires who got da same arraignment i got, maybe you need to learn da actual law.

Nah, I'm telling the truth. Government regulation and tax credit subsidize your living expense.

That is public assistance

No shame in it though, unless you don't need it and are finessing the system, or mock others on public assistance. Then that could be reason to hang your head.

 

[ryda421]

u need to ryda off my lap b. jeez

good rebuttal. surprised you didn't post some dr music

 

[Xennial]

 

 

[ksteezy]

highly disagree, my mom's mechanic died a millionaire, home boy had a random heart attack.

i know hick dominicans coming straight from da island, to a random mom and pop shop on Jerome ave in da BX making bread, and be situated in 6 months, at, whip, random chick knocked up, coppin bottles in lounges barely knowin English.

da money is definitely there.

Millionaire? Doubt it....but yes, there has been a market for mechanics with their own shops, specially in the BX, those days are counted my dude...most people either get fed up with the idea of being up at the mechanic every other month for a different issue on their used car and go get a car under warranty straight from the dealer, or they just learn to maintan their own car, so the days when a mechanic can guess game whatever is wrong with your car, charge you and you back to square 1 in 3 days having to go back to that mechanic to spend more money are OVER.

 

[EddieDoyers]

 

Man I didn't knock his net worth
I'm just saying there could be more done with the financial resources

 

[ksteezy]

you have had no overhead your whole life. you're still struggling to buy a damn chain. you have had not rapid growth. what kind of delusion are you living in.

That is kind of true....with my salary living at home, I'd be dipped in gold, rocking the finest fabrics, driving the fanciest cars....not sure why the hemi has been 10 years in the making and the Jesus piece don't have a Cuban attached to it....doesn't add up.

 

[ksteezy]

u need to ryda off my lap b. jeez

as far as rent controlled APT, joints is gold plated. i could be clocking 6 figs & still be able to keep it.

ask Al Sharpton & Charlie Rangel, or alot of upper east/west side residents.

So you taking advantage of rent control, yet mock those on government assistance....do you NOT see the irony in that?

 

[00david00]

So we can dismiss gerrymandering, as far as a significant, direct, effect on the Presidential Election.

Then there is voter suppression, which is really a problem independent of the Electoral College. Whether we used the EC or national poll, voter suppression would be a problem. It is not unique to the EC.

--

What I'm trying to say, is that it is pointless to tie those points to the EC and use that to explain why HRC lost.

Everyone running knew how the EC works, and campaigned accordingly. They campaigned for the states they needed, not for the national poll. She lost because she couldn't win a single one of the swing states she needed, and even lost two of her own to the guy from the Apprentice.

--

As far as an argument on the merits of EC vs National poll, that's fine, I'm not trying to protect the EC. But pointing to her lead in the national is pointless because that's not what they campaigned for.

No we can not. Dude you're looking at it just in theory, in practice it plays a part.

Voter suppression is so potent because or gerrymandering. And Gerrymandering is so potent because House Seats (and in turn Electoral College votes) are locked at 538

They work together

-And no one is using this just to complain about Clinton losing. Yes the argument has to discuss the EC not representing the will of the people, and HRC and Gore are examples.

But there are a ton of other valid criticism of the EC and your voting system as a hole. With or with Gerrymandering or voter suppression.

I don't see that as a sound argument for linking EC and gerrymandering.

On this premise particularly, as it pertains to the Presidential election: Gerrymandering is powerful because we are locked in at 538 EC votes.

For the presidential election, does it really matter how Virginia is sliced up if the winner of the state is the one that gets the most votes total? If it were based on districts, I could see how it would be influential.

Unless you mean on a larger/historical scale, the states had essentially been gerrymandered already when we adopted this system? But then this is no longer an active process, the state aren't being "gerrymandered" continuously. (we aren't actively re-drawing state lines between elections)

--

This topic came up through talking about the relevance of the national poll, and how Dems have been cheated out again (HRC this time). Gerrymandering and voter suppression were both mentioned. It kind of was used to complain about the loss, at least with who I was replying to. But we can ignore that point because it is strawman-y.

--

In terms of mandate. I don't know if you can use the national numbers when the election/campaigns were based on EC votes, because that affects voter behavior, but I'll concede that. They might not have a mandate in that sense, but they have the Presidency, House, Senate, and a soon to be SC lean. All with Trump (!) at the top of the ticket. They have something better than a mandate, actual power.

I guess my larger problem with mentioning the pop vote, and talking about a lack of mandate, it eventually leads to a conclusion similar to: We were close, we were pretty popular, we just got screwed out by a few 100k votes. It leads to overlooking shortcomings. Especially frustrating (and this one is not directed at you) when it is combined w/ other "rigged election" themes to call the results into question.

 

[biggie62]

u need to ryda off my lap b. jeez

as far as rent controlled APT, joints is gold plated. i could be clocking 6 figs & still be able to keep it.

ask Al Sharpton & Charlie Rangel, or alot of upper east/west side residents.

So you taking advantage of rent control, yet mock those on government assistance....do you NOT see the irony in that?

 

[deleted]

Are millionaires 100% ineligible for public assistance?

 

[son nelly]

You still don't know what being disenfranchised is.

You seem to not understand what the word disproportionate means as well.

The Romney popular vote argument is stupid. A winner is a winner.

Pure conjecture on the Federal voting laws, that wouldn't even need to be in place.

You just repeating a whole bunch of nothing at this point, and still talking pass me.

Responding in anymore detail to you as this point would be a waste of time.

You're the one repeating crap, man.

You're not saying a damned thing and expecting MASSIVE constitutional change that would magically favor just Democrats in a currently Republican dominated government. Like some negro from the sky is just going to say "This time only the popular vote counts" and everything stays the same. Plus states relax their voter laws and its all gravy. Cut out the rural vote entirely, they're just hicks. 

Forget the process. Forget the fact that those hicks vote all the time. Forget the fact that they actually vote during mid terms and put their guys in the good spots, and have done so steadily since 2010. Forget that these are the people who will be having heavy say in any changes being made. Like I said, you want to change the game but keep the same stats.

Voting numbers were high in 2012. High in 2008. Both comfortable Dem Electoral wins. What disenfranchisement was there with record voter turnouts? Why did that change this year? The system? No, the system was there the last two elections. The system gave us what we wanted, all we had to do was show up. The 2016 disenfranchisement lays on the candidates. The Dems went back on what got them to 2008 and on top of that got arrogant and they (and we) will be paying for it.

Small tangent, but thats my entire problem with alot of this post election rhetoric. EVERYTHING was set up for them, no excuses. They didn't execute.

 

[EddieDoyers]

Are millionaires 100% ineligible for public assistance?

They are unless the government doesn't find out

Example: ODB going in a limo to get food stamps then later getting cut off it after being found that he wasn't poor

 

[RustyShackleford]

So we can dismiss gerrymandering, as far as a significant, direct, effect on the Presidential Election.

Then there is voter suppression, which is really a problem independent of the Electoral College. Whether we used the EC or national poll, voter suppression would be a problem. It is not unique to the EC.

--

What I'm trying to say, is that it is pointless to tie those points to the EC and use that to explain why HRC lost.

Everyone running knew how the EC works, and campaigned accordingly. They campaigned for the states they needed, not for the national poll. She lost because she couldn't win a single one of the swing states she needed, and even lost two of her own to the guy from the Apprentice.

--

As far as an argument on the merits of EC vs National poll, that's fine, I'm not trying to protect the EC. But pointing to her lead in the national is pointless because that's not what they campaigned for.

No we can not. Dude you're looking at it just in theory, in practice it plays a part.

Voter suppression is so potent because or gerrymandering. And Gerrymandering is so potent because House Seats (and in turn Electoral College votes) are locked at 538

They work together

-And no one is using this just to complain about Clinton losing. Yes the argument has to discuss the EC not representing the will of the people, and HRC and Gore are examples.

But there are a ton of other valid criticism of the EC and your voting system as a hole. With or with Gerrymandering or voter suppression.

I don't see that as a sound argument for linking EC and gerrymandering.

On this premise particularly, as it pertains to the Presidential election: Gerrymandering is powerful because we are locked in at 538 EC votes.

For the presidential election, does it really matter how Virginia is sliced up if the winner of the state is the one that gets the most votes total? If it were based on districts, I could see how it would be influential.

Unless you mean on a larger/historical scale, the states had essentially been gerrymandered already when we adopted this system? But then this is no longer an active process, the state aren't being "gerrymandered" continuously. (we aren't actively re-drawing state lines between elections)

--

This topic came up through talking about the relevance of the national poll, and how Dems have been cheated out again (HRC this time). Gerrymandering and voter suppression were both mentioned. It kind of was used to complain about the loss, at least with who I was replying to. But we can ignore that point because it is strawman-y.

--

In terms of mandate. I don't know if you can use the national numbers when the election/campaigns were based on EC votes, because that affects voter behavior, but I'll concede that. They might not have a mandate in that sense, but they have the Presidency, House, Senate, and a soon to be SC lean. All with Trump (!) at the top of the ticket. They have something better than a mandate, actual power.

I guess my larger problem with mentioning the pop vote, and talking about a lack of mandate, it eventually leads to a conclusion similar to: We were close, we were pretty popular, we just got screwed out by a few 100k votes. It leads to overlooking shortcomings. Especially frustrating (and this one is not directed at you) when it is combined w/ other "rigged election" themes to call the results into question.

You ignored part of my argument.

Gerrymandering is so potent because of the lock on EC votes, and voter suppression is so potent partly because of gerrymandering.

Voter suppression has an affect on presidential races.

The reason gerrymandering has an affect is through the voter suppression. Minorities are bundled together in one district, and as rural whites make up majority of the rest. Then states allocate voter resources equally among the district. Sound cool right, except the district that has minorities is more densely populated.

That means their are less polling stations and booths per person in these areas.

Gerrymandering a the vehicle through which these discriminatory practices take place.

-And I know this is unlikely to ever happen, so I don't think it needs much consideration, but let us keep in mind there are a couple mechanisms where gerrymandering can have a direct affect on the Presidency.

--------

And you what me to ignore the second point because it sound like a strawman, yet your present a strawman in the third point. MAtter of fact it sound like a slippery slope strawman callabo

Because I don't believe I have argued those points in that way, or have made those claims. Are you just talking in general?

 

[RustyShackleford]

You still don't know what being disenfranchised is.


You seem to not understand what the word disproportionate means as well.


The Romney popular vote argument is stupid. A winner is a winner.


Pure conjecture on the Federal voting laws, that wouldn't even need to be in place.


You just repeating a whole bunch of nothing at this point, and still talking pass me.


Responding in anymore detail to you as this point would be a waste of time.

You're the one repeating crap, man.

You're not saying a damned thing and expecting MASSIVE constitutional change that would magically favor just Democrats in a currently Republican dominated government. Like some negro from the sky is just going to say "This time only the popular vote counts" and everything stays the same. Plus states relax their voter laws and its all gravy. Cut out the rural vote entirely, they're just hicks. 

Forget the process. Forget the fact that those hicks vote all the time. Forget the fact that they actually vote during mid terms and put their guys in the good spots, and have done so steadily since 2010. Forget that these are the people who will be having heavy say in any changes being made. Like I said, you want to change the game but keep the same stats.

Voting numbers were high in 2012. High in 2008. Both comfortable Dem Electoral wins. What disenfranchisement was there with record voter turnouts? Why did that change this year? The system? No, the system was there the last two elections. The system gave us what we wanted, all we had to do was show up. The 2016 disenfranchisement lays on the candidates. The Dems went back on what got them to 2008 and on top of that got arrogant and they (and we) will be paying for it.

Small tangent, but thats my entire problem with alot of this post election rhetoric. EVERYTHING was set up for them, no excuses. They didn't execute.

Now your just rambling and ranting nonsense and strawman at me, this time with racial tilt.

And now you want to ignore voter suppression tactics on top of all the other stuff you couldn't understand

Dude, spare me your bull ****