**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Of course that's all over since Comey wrote that letter about the FBI investigating her. There's no way she can win now. I'm a little saddened since my prediction that Trump was always up and would win the 353 would be tainted by this new colossus bombshell that could be so bad that it results in a type of rarely seen "no show" landslide on election day (per the opinion of an unnamed pollster).

So what's your prediction now? 538 clean sweep?

[Poopadoop]

Regardless, the fact that IBD is getting those samples consistently combined with other facts like how well general turnout reflects primary turnout suggests that IBD is missing something by not incorporating this.

So when a poll gets a big D+ sample and corrects for it they did the right thing, but when a poll gets a R+ sample and corrects for it they did the wrong thing?

Riiiiiight.

[Poopadoop]

...a type of rarely seen "no show" landslide on election day (per the opinion of an unnamed pollster i read about on my favorite far right website).

fyp

[wufwugy]

It's gotten to the point that you'd oppose me if I called your mom swell.

[boost]

I agree with this. My response is to the idea the demographic in question is having some shameful affront to their ability to vote.



I did not intend to give that impression. I don't agree with limiting somebody's vote for the wrong reason, and doing so based merely on being black is a wrong reason.That is, however, I think different than the thing I was trying to address.

It's a difference without distinction, imo.

Poopadoop-- your response to my comment on the naivety of blind supporters of pure democracy reminds me of the response you often get from blind supporters of capitalism. True, some form of this system seems to be the best we've ever seen, or at least the best given the state of technological/social/etc progress. But it shouldn't need to be said that because none of us can quite imagine, much less design, a better system at this very moment, that the current system is without flaw. And certainly the "purest" form of systems with such complex and far reaching ramifications are almost surely not ideal.

[Savy]

Oh I get the joke now. It's because while Clinton has been up we (I) have been saying she's down.

I missed the joke because I don't say she's down because she's up, but for the reasons given on why she's supposedly up.

That doesn't make sense for the reasons you said & as a result wasn't the joke. I was expecting you to miss it ~30% of the time and give me an update on how Trump is doing ~85% of the time (which is what I wanted).

[CoccoBill]

Millions of people vote to have the government take from others and give to themselves. If I were to go into a rich lady's house and take 10% of her jewelry, I would be doing something most people consider wrong. But if I were to convince enough of my neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods to tell the government to do it for us, we would be "exercising our right." As we can see, a problem arises when we think of voting as a right granted merely being a person who exists. Western societies have injured themselves greatly by allowing a voting system where people behave in unjust ways.

You bring up a good point here but seem to miss what it was. In the first example a single person decides something without majority consent, that is unjust. In the latter the decision is justified, if the majority agrees to it. Democracy in a nutshell. If the majority agrees that something is morally justified, then by definition it is. Somebody's jewelry has to go to pay for the roads and the army, I happen to think it's justified to take from each according to their ability rather than from each equally, since not everybody has jewelry.

To apply this to "people voting for the wrong reasons," if somebody doesn't work and votes to have people who do work pay more so he can have more welfare, no, he should not be allowed to vote. The degree to which we can create standards regarding voting rights that reflect this is a question. Discarding votes due to what they are is definitely not an answer, in case you thought that's one place I was going. My best (simple) solution involves basing the right to vote on tax status, or something to that effect.

Plutocracy in a nutshell.

[OngBonga]

It certainly is better than alternatives.

I believe in democracy too, at least as long as we have government. But I make the points I make because democracy isn't synonymous with "one man one vote." Eligibility should be regulated in some very important ways.

Regulating eligibility is acceptable so long as it's applied without prejudice. We already do this. Children can't vote. We also don't allow convicts to vote, which I personally think is wrong, but it's applied uniformly so it's acceptable. When we start saying people of a certain political lean can't vote, that isn't acceptable. Or if we use intelligence as a guide, again I can't accept that.

Democracy by definition isn't "one man one vote", but if we want democracy to be as fair as possible, it should be.

And yes I agree with your point that democracy is needed so long as we have government. Not all systems need democracy. Anarchy probably does though as a means for community to prevail. I think all systems that I would be happy to live in require some form of democracy. Any system which appoints leaders or decision makers, those who are affected and expected to abide by the rules or be bound by decisions need to have a say on who makes the decisions. I don't see any other system working with everyone happy about it.

[Renton]

Trump goes from 9:1 dog to 2:1 in 72 hours time. My boy surgin'!

[Poopadoop]

Poopadoop-- your response to my comment on the naivety of blind supporters of pure democracy reminds me of the response you often get from blind supporters of capitalism. True, some form of this system seems to be the best we've ever seen, or at least the best given the state of technological/social/etc progress. But it shouldn't need to be said that because none of us can quite imagine, much less design, a better system at this very moment, that the current system is without flaw. And certainly the "purest" form of systems with such complex and far reaching ramifications are almost surely not ideal.

I didn't say it was theoretically impossible to design a better system, I just said it hasn't happened yet.

[wufwugy]

You bring up a good point here but seem to miss what it was. In the first example a single person decides something without majority consent, that is unjust. In the latter the decision is justified, if the majority agrees to it. Democracy in a nutshell. If the majority agrees that something is morally justified, then by definition it is. Somebody's jewelry has to go to pay for the roads and the army, I happen to think it's justified to take from each according to their ability rather than from each equally, since not everybody has jewelry.

Then let's change it to only three people exist: me, my buddy, and jewelry lady, and we take her jewelry.

Also when you say the latter decision is justified, do you think the same about making Bill Gates eat mud, since that was come to through the same hypothetical "majority rules".

Plutocracy in a nutshell.

The originators of modern democracy and the republic never envisioned nor accounted for high taxes or welfarism. They likewise, at least in the states, did not envision the corruption of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Vote eligibility being dependent upon net tax payment is certainly not a perfect solution, but the reason why is because it doesn't completely eliminate corruption and other problems. As long as we exist within a system where rights and principles have been corrupted by government policy and ruling, we have to figure out a way to counter it. If we don't, we'll be left with what we have: an ever increasing deterioration of the growth of productivity in commerce, character, and culture.

[wufwugy]

Regulating eligibility is acceptable so long as it's applied without prejudice. We already do this. Children can't vote. We also don't allow convicts to vote, which I personally think is wrong, but it's applied uniformly so it's acceptable. When we start saying people of a certain political lean can't vote, that isn't acceptable. Or if we use intelligence as a guide, again I can't accept that.

I want to make clear that this idea you expressed is itself a "political lean." The idea that people should not be restricted from voting based on intelligence is a political position. Granted, it is really hard to figure out some equitable way to regulate the vote well. In fact, I think it's ultimately a paradox and cannot be done, which is one of the many reasons why I think the solution involves a moving away from government in the first place.

[wufwugy]

give me an update on how Trump is doing ~85% of the time (which is what I wanted).

Here's how he's doing:

[OngBonga]

I want to make clear that this idea you expressed is itself a "political lean." The idea that people should not be restricted from voting based on intelligence is a political position. Granted, it is really hard to figure out some equitable way to regulate the vote well. In fact, I think it's ultimately a paradox and cannot be done, which is one of the many reasons why I think the solution involves a moving away from government in the first place.

I understand my position is a political one. I'm not asking for any special privileges based on my political opinion though. I'm not saying those who differ in opinion shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Moving away from government is my solution too. This is where we agree. But so long as government exists, and I expect it to for the rest of my life at least, then democracy is optimal, and it should be the case that opinion, intelligence, criminal record, all of these factors should be irrelevant... each vote is equal and a basic right.

[wufwugy]

The absolute best thing for the legitimacy of government would be if the key players in the Clinton Mafia Foundation corruption went to prison. This would mean Hillary and probably Obama among other politicians and staff.

[wufwugy]

I understand my position is a political one. I'm not asking for any special privileges based on my political opinion though. I'm not saying those who differ in opinion shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Moving away from government is my solution too. This is where we agree. But so long as government exists, and I expect it to for the rest of my life at least, then democracy is optimal, and it should be the case that opinion, intelligence, criminal record, all of these factors should be irrelevant... each vote is equal and a basic right.

Yet it is because this is untenable that western democracies have been so stressed under the problems I previously mentioned.

Don't ask me, ask Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

[wufwugy]

I understand my position is a political one. I'm not asking for any special privileges based on my political opinion though. I'm not saying those who differ in opinion shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Moving away from government is my solution too. This is where we agree. But so long as government exists, and I expect it to for the rest of my life at least, then democracy is optimal, and it should be the case that opinion, intelligence, criminal record, all of these factors should be irrelevant... each vote is equal and a basic right.

Also, inherent to your argument is the point that restricting the vote towards that which subverts the power of government is a good idea.

[CoccoBill]

Then let's change it to only three people exist: me, my buddy, and jewelry lady, and we take her jewelry.

Also when you say the latter decision is justified, do you think the same about making Bill Gates eat mud, since that was come to through the same hypothetical "majority rules".

Does not change a thing. Of course, if you mean that the 2 just take the jewelry and themselves provide nothing, most people would deem this unethical. Luckily with larger sample sizes people tend to converge to more fair views and would mandate different policies, as we see in modern societies. Again, this is democracy in full swing, you get what the people want.

The originators of modern democracy and the republic never envisioned nor accounted for high taxes or welfarism. They likewise, at least in the states, did not envision the corruption of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Vote eligibility being dependent upon net tax payment is certainly not a perfect solution, but the reason why is because it doesn't completely eliminate corruption and other problems. As long as we exist within a system where rights and principles have been corrupted by government policy and ruling, we have to figure out a way to counter it. If we don't, we'll be left with what we have: an ever increasing deterioration of the growth of productivity in commerce, character, and culture.

You do realize that the moochers would have to be a majority for their policies to take into effect?

[CoccoBill]

The absolute best thing for the legitimacy of government would be if the key players in the Clinton Mafia Foundation corruption went to prison. This would mean Hillary and probably Obama among other politicians and staff.

What do you think are the odds of Trump going to prison for any of his 73 pending lawsuits?

[wufwugy]

Does not change a thing. Of course, if you mean that the 2 just take the jewelry and themselves provide nothing, most people would deem this unethical. Luckily with larger sample sizes people tend to converge to more fair views and would mandate different policies, as we see in modern societies. Again, this is democracy in full swing, you get what the people want.



You do realize that the moochers would have to be a majority for their policies to take into effect?

It has already happened.

[wufwugy]

What do you think are the odds of Trump going to prison for any of his 73 pending lawsuits?

I'm not super into false equivalencies.

[CoccoBill]

It has already happened.

Any studies showing how the welfare state deteriorates the growth of productivity?

[CoccoBill]

I'm not super into false equivalencies.

Fair enough, I agree. Some of those 73 are serious charges with merit.

[wufwugy]

Any studies showing how the welfare state deteriorates the growth of productivity?

Definitely a ton that show the elements, but none that I've read that I can name from memory.

A welfare state in theory doesn't necessarily have to reduce the incentive to work, but ours does. The studies economists conduct on this are more along the lines of what the effects of the disincentives are, not whether or not the disincentive exists because that is already about as confirmed as it gets.

[Poopadoop]

There may be other things in a society that matter to people besides having it achieve maximum productivity.

[wufwugy]

Fair enough, I agree. Some of those 73 are serious charges with merit.

The FBI announced Clinton is under criminal investigation just over a week out from the election. The only way that happens is if the FBI believes she is very guilty.

Deflection with false equivalencies is unbecoming.

[wufwugy]

There may be other things in a society that matter to people besides having it achieve maximum productivity.

When we think in terms of what productivity is in essence (which is what I did), productivity is at the heart of everything people care about. Wanna be happy? Well you're gonna be less happy when the ways that happiness develops are less productive.

I wasn't referring to productivity exclusively in terms of the dollars and cents earned at the factory.

[wufwugy]

An example is that incentivizing people to leech off of other people makes them less productive at building quality character, and even less productive at finding satisfaction (on average).

[Poopadoop]

The FBI announced Clinton is under criminal investigation just over a week out from the election. The only way that happens is if the FBI believes she is very guilty.

Or if their director wants the other guy to win.

If they were so sure she was guilty you'd think they'd be in a big hurry to publish the evidence rather than just saying 'we're going digging again'

[wufwugy]

I believe this is the post where Adams explains it much better than I could

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1525313...the-persuasion

[Poopadoop]

When we think in terms of what productivity is in essence (which is what I did), productivity is at the heart of everything people care about. Wanna be happy? Well you're gonna be less happy when the ways that happiness develops are less productive.

I wasn't referring to productivity exclusively in terms of the dollars and cents earned at the factory.

Having some small proportion of the population on welfare doesn't make me unhappy because that's one less CD I and everyone else could have bought that year with the miniscule amount of taxes we each contributed to it.

It makes me happy because I'd rather the rest of us have one less CD than see some people starve, be homeless, and/or decide they need to rob me to not starve.

[Poopadoop]

I believe this is the post where Adams explains it much better than I could

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1525313...the-persuasion

LOL, fucking dilbert again. You pull him out like you're drawing a gun.

[wufwugy]

Having some small proportion of the population on welfare doesn't make me unhappy because that's one less CD I and everyone else could have bought that year with the miniscule amount of taxes we each contributed to it.

It makes me happy because I'd rather the rest of us have one less CD than see someone starve or decide they need to rob me to not starve.

It harms the taxpayer as well as the recipient.

You lose far, far more than a CD, and the recipient loses a great deal as well.

[wufwugy]

LOL, fucking dilbert again. You pull him out like you're drawing a gun.

If could post in a different font whenever you've shut your brain off, that'd be swell.

[OngBonga]

An example is that incentivizing people to leech off of other people makes them less productive at building quality character, and even less productive at finding satisfaction (on average).

If I create a company, and then employ people to do all the work while I rake in the profit, I am leeching off people.

I'm not speaking for myself here, because I'd rather work than steal, but welfare stops a great many people from turning to crime. That's why it exists. Take it away, and we have shanty towns where people shit into carrier bags then fling them out the window. That's why we have welfare.

It is a price society must pay.

[Poopadoop]

If could post in a different font whenever you've shut your brain off, that'd be swell.

In that case you'd be posting in a different font about 95% of the time.

[Poopadoop]

It harms the taxpayer as well as the recipient.

You lose far, far more than a CD, and the recipient loses a great deal as well.

Right, because the knock on effects of that extra CD go on to become hospitals and eventually space stations after the money is reinvested with infinite exponential growth. Meanwhile society turns to shit.

[Poopadoop]

I believe this is the post where Adams explains it much better than I could

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1525313...the-persuasion

Ok I read it. He presents one possible scenario where the outcome is (surprise!) that Clinton is guilty as sin and Comey is a hero. And (surprise!) this is the scenario you agree with because it aligns with your hardon for Trump.

[wufwugy]

If I create a company, and then employ people to do all the work while I rake in the profit, I am leeching off people.

TIL that when people have jobs because of you, you're leeching.

I'm not speaking for myself here, because I'd rather work than steal, but welfare stops a great many people from turning to crime.

It has the opposite effect, and it's indirect. I know the idea of Aladdin stealing a loaf of bread because he's starving and poor is a popular theme, but it's not that representative. What instead happens the vast majority of time when people are hungry and poor and not receiving handouts is that they starting taking charge of themselves and working. Some will turn to crime, but a small portion, and the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The indirect effects of welfare on causing crime arises by creating and perpetuating ghettos and the like.

That's why it exists. Take it away, and we have shanty towns where people shit into carrier bags then fling them out the window. That's why we have welfare.

That's why we think we have welfare.

It is a price society must pay.

A price society must pay is encouraging people to be irresponsible?

[wufwugy]

Right, because the knock on effects of that extra CD go on to become hospitals and eventually space stations after the money is reinvested with infinite exponential growth. Meanwhile society turns to shit.

This is the hoax they sell you.

[wufwugy]

Ok I read it. He presents one possible scenario where the outcome is (surprise!) that Clinton is guilty as sin and Comey is a hero. And (surprise!) this is the scenario you agree with because it aligns with your hardon for Trump.

This one isn't that hard. It takes many brain somersaults to come up with an excuse for why the FBI's behavior suggests that Clinton isn't guilty as sin.

[Poopadoop]

In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton’s rights.

Now that Clinton has demanded the evidence be made public, Comey is free from any such constraint. And yet so far we've heard nothing...

[Poopadoop]

This one isn't that hard. It takes many brain somersaults to come up with an excuse for why the FBI's behavior suggests that Clinton isn't guilty as sin.

It's pretty easy actually, and just as plausible as the "Comey the patriot" story.

1. Comey wants Trump to win.

2. He implied Clinton's activity was criminal in the earlier stages of the investigation but could not prosecute - he had no criminal evidence but wanted to damage her reputation.

3. Now he suddenly, days before the election, finds an excuse to open up the investigation again. He decides to make it public in order to damage Clinton again.

[OngBonga]

TIL that when people have jobs because of you, you're leeching.

Yup, you're leeching off their labour.

That's why we think we have welfare.

Why do you think we have welfare?

A price society must pay is encouraging people to be irresponsible?

People do not need encouragement in this regard. Those on benefits, generally they are already irresponsible.

Some people are better off on welfare. Again, I'm not speaking for myself here, when I work I tend to do what I'm paid to do. But you understand that labour has value. When most of us work, we provide more value for the company than we get in monetry reward... this is how profit is generated. Some people do not provide the company with that value, instead they are rewarded more than their labour is worth. Thus, they are stifling business by the very fact they are forced to work. These people are basically unemployable and are better off out of the workforce. These people make up a large percentage of the long term unemployed. These people still need shelter food and water.

[OngBonga]

An example is that incentivizing people to leech off of other people makes them less productive at building quality character, and even less productive at finding satisfaction (on average).

I take issue with this because I don't see myself as leeching off people. I am leeching off the state.

Yes, that comes from taxpayers, aka people. But it's indirect. If I work, tax does not go down for those people.

And while I leech a pittance, there are plenty of people out there that (legally) leech a fortune, and that has a much more direct impact on how much tax an individual has to pay.

[wufwugy]

It's pretty easy actually, and just as plausible as the "Comey the patriot" story.

1. Comey wants Trump to win.

2. He implied Clinton's activity was criminal in the earlier stages of the investigation but could not prosecute - he had no criminal evidence but wanted to damage her reputation.

3. Now he suddenly, days before the election, finds an excuse to open up the investigation again. He decides to make it public in order to damage Clinton again.

Comey going rogue is perhaps the most untenable idea you've ever presented to me.

[wufwugy]

Now that Clinton has demanded the evidence be made public, Comey is free from any such constraint. And yet so far we've heard nothing...

That's not how investigations work. Suspects and potential assets don't get tipped off.

[Poopadoop]

Comey going rogue is perhaps the most untenable idea you've ever presented to me.

It's untenable only because you'd prefer not to believe it. He's hardly gone off with a shotgun after Clinton. He's broken an unspoken rule, nothing more.

[Poopadoop]

That's not how investigations work.

But he could bury her with the evidence (according to you). She'd never win the election and he'd be an even greater hero patriot than he already is.

Suspects and potential assets don't get tipped off.

If you have a smoking gun you don't need to hide it from the murderer.

It's not like she can go into the FBI and delete the files now, can she? If he has an email where she's sharing state secrets with her housekeeper (or whatever heinous thing she supposedly has done), she's busted plain and simple whether she knows about before she goes to trial or not.

[Poopadoop]

Here's Comey's letter to the FBI:

To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

He is basically telling his underlings he doesn't know if he has evidence of wrongdoing or not. Doesn't sound like someone who thinks they have a slam-dunk case.

[wufwugy]

Yup, you're leeching off their labour.

That isn't leeching.

Why do you think we have welfare?

Lots of reasons, and for the reason you stated. It makes people feel good to think they're helping people by giving them handouts.

People do not need encouragement in this regard. Those on benefits, generally they are already irresponsible.

TIL that if you take food stamps away from somebody who doesn't work, they're going to die of hunger before they find some dishes to wash so they can buy some food.

When most of us work, we provide more value for the company than we get in monetry reward... this is how profit is generated.

First off, your wage is your profit. And if labor received 100% of company profit, the laborers would lose their profits (jobs) because the company would have such colossal risk that it would inevitably (and soon) go out of business.

Some people do not provide the company with that value, instead they are rewarded more than their labour is worth. Thus, they are stifling business by the very fact they are forced to work.

Wages are differential. Well, except below where there's a minimum wage. Differential wages means that even when you don't produce that much value, you can still be hired for cheap enough that the employer gains. The only truly unemployable are the extremely sick, extremely old, or extremely disabled.

These people are basically unemployable and are better off out of the workforce. These people make up a large percentage of the long term unemployed. These people still need shelter food and water.

There are people where this is true. But it is not true for a large quantity of those who are out of the labor force because of welfare.

I take issue with this because I don't see myself as leeching off people. I am leeching off the state.

Yes, that comes from taxpayers, aka people. But it's indirect. If I work, tax does not go down for those people.

It comes from some place and some time. Somebody pays for the benefits others receive. It appears to not matter to many since the trick by the elites has been to make it so that one person on welfare gets paid for some long time in the future by each individual on average having a .000001% increase in taxes or something.

The tax isn't the only bad part. The unproductive person is hurt by being unproductive, and the economy and the rest of us are hurt by it as well. We're all better off because of what Bill Gates did. Some of the people who today are sitting on welfare would probably otherwise be enormously productive people some level comparable to the class Gates belongs to, but because they're sitting on welfare and are unlikely to achieve, all of us and all our progeny are worse off.

[Poopadoop]

Comey may very well be making this public with honest intentions and thinking it's the right thing to do. But for Adams to go from that to assuming he did it because he already has damning evidence is not only a leap, it contradicts what Comey himself says to his own dept.

[wufwugy]

It's untenable only because you'd prefer not to believe it. He's hardly gone off with a shotgun after Clinton. He's broken an unspoken rule, nothing more.

If he was rogue in this he would already have been forced to resign.

But he could bury her with the evidence (according to you). She'd never win the election and he'd be an even greater hero patriot than he already is

I'm sure you noticed that his letter was the nail in the casket for her campaign. As was intended.

If you have a smoking gun you don't need to hide it from the murderer.

It's not like she can go into the FBI and delete the files now, can she? If he has an email where she's sharing state secrets with her housekeeper (or whatever heinous thing she supposedly has done), she's busted plain and simple whether she knows about before she goes to trial or not.

She's not the only suspect.

He is basically telling his underlings he doesn't know if he has evidence of wrongdoing or not. Doesn't sound like someone who thinks they have a slam-dunk case.

This can mean anything. His releasing the news to the public at the time he did it means only one thing the overwhelming majority of the time.

Comey may very well be making this public with honest intentions and thinking it's the right thing to do. But for Adams to go from that to assuming he did it because he already has damning evidence is not only a leap, it contradicts what Comey himself says to his own dept.

Those sorts of statements are very, very common in public statements, and they're mostly meaningless. When this release means something other than Clinton is guilty as sin, it means the release was a mistake or something weird like that.

[Poopadoop]

TIL that if you take food stamps away from somebody who doesn't work, they're going to die of hunger before they find some dishes to wash so they can buy some food.

You're assuming here that everyone who doesn't work is either a) employable, but just prefers to spend their time drinking tea, smoking weed, and talking it up on the interwebs; or b) going to get a job the day they get off welfare. It's just not that simple.

Some proportion of those people, probably a large proportion, aren't like Ong. They may have mental health issues. They may have great difficulty getting and holding a job. What happens to them?

[Poopadoop]

The difference between me and you Wuf is I'm willing to consider a lot of possible reasons why things are the way they are, and even change my views from time to time, whereas you think you already know why things are the way they are. And then you have the nuts to tell me I'm the one who doesn't think.

[OngBonga]

TIL that individuals owe society their labour for the benefit of everyone.

[Poopadoop]

TIL that individuals owe society their labour for the benefit of everyone.

Sounds like communism to me.

[OngBonga]

Wuf's a commie!

[wufwugy]

You're assuming here that everyone who doesn't work is either a) employable, but just prefers to spend their time drinking tea, smoking weed, and talking it up on the interwebs; or b) going to get a job the day they get off welfare. It's just not that simple.

Some proportion of those people, probably a large proportion, aren't like Ong. They may have mental health issues. They may have great difficulty getting and holding a job. What happens to them?

I stated as much in the very same post.

The difference between me and you Wuf is I'm willing to consider a lot of possible reasons why things are the way they are, and even change my views from time to time, whereas you think you already know why things are the way they are. And then you have the nuts to tell me I'm the one who doesn't think.

That you think this shows that it isn't the difference. Consider the above, where you told me something like I didn't know it even though I explained that very thing in the same post you were referencing.

The worst thing about explaining orthodox economics is that people think it's opinion.

[wufwugy]

TIL that individuals owe society their labour for the benefit of everyone.

"Owe" has nothing to do with it. Don't sidestep the issue.

The reason I seem to have the same discussion on this board over and over is probably because I haven't learned that the tactics used when my points are too hard to beat is to change the subject or pretend I didn't say something I did.

Or maybe I have finally learned it....

[JKDS]

The opposite is true. You're arguments are challenged because they are weak.

[OngBonga]

"Owe" has nothing to do with it. Don't sidestep the issue.

The reason I seem to have the same discussion on this board over and over is probably because I haven't learned that the tactics used when my points are too hard to beat is to change the subject or pretend I didn't say something I did.

Or maybe I have finally learned it....

But you're implying an obligation on my part to be productive, which benefits you. You say it's because it benefits me, but I'll be the one who decides what is of benefit to me. Time and sanity and more important to me than money and productivity.

We have a different opinion. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you're saying I owe my labour to society, while I say society owes me food water and shelter. I have that opinion because I can't go and hunt my own food, I can't build a shelter in the woods, I can't dig a well for water. The law, society, stops me doing these things. There are two ways for me to get the things I need to survive... work or leech. Now unless I can get the kind of work that will maintain my sanity, I'm gonna leech.

So, unless you acknowledge that society owes me a survival, then you're saying I owe my labour to society.

[Poopadoop]

Consider the above, where you told me something like I didn't know it even though I explained that very thing in the same post you were referencing.

Sorry if I don't have time to read every word you post and occasionally miss something. But it doesn't change what I said before.

You state your opinions as facts. It rarely if ever seems to enter your head that you might not have things all figured out. That's a sign of someone who has switched off the objective part of their brain and is only interested in defending what they already believe, rather than questioning or perhaps even reconsidering it.

[Poopadoop]

If he was rogue in this he would already have been forced to resign.

By whom? FBI director has 10 year tenure. He can't get fired unless he actually does something illegal. He didn't.

I'm sure you noticed that his letter was the nail in the casket for her campaign.

Hardly is the election over now, despite what you would like to think.

She's not the only suspect.

Ok, he doesn't have to name names though does he? He could just say 'we have damning evidence that shows HRC is guilty of a crime'. Why doesn't he do that? Perhaps because he doesn't have it?

This can mean anything. His releasing the news to the public at the time he did it means only one thing the overwhelming majority of the time.

It has multiple plausible interpretations, yours, mine and something in-between.

Those sorts of statements are very, very common in public statements, and they're mostly meaningless. When this release means something other than Clinton is guilty as sin, it means the release was a mistake or something weird like that.

It's possible he's obfuscating the strength of the evidence for some reason, it's also possible he's telling the truth. I don't know for a fact which it is, and neither do you.

[bigred]

Another sad tally to add to my election experience is that I (after many Wuf posts) decided to look into this Scott Adams blog. What a nutjob. His hypnotizing posts are reminiscent of the Pickup Artist movement I remember reading about years ago, the fictitious Jordan Chase villain from Dexter season 5 ("Take it!"), and other ego-centric characters who think manipulation is synonymous with influence and there is no cost too great to establish control over others. Very Ayn Randish (not a compliment).

There's a small part of me that hopes this thread is a glorious (yet irresponsible) troll of Trump supporters channeling his inner Catbert.

Sadly, unless trolling is revealed, he's added to the list of artists who's works I appreciate but don't like as a person with the likes of Orson Scott Card.

[a500lbgorilla]

Another sad tally to add to my election experience is that I (after many Wuf posts) decided to look into this Scott Adams blog. What a nutjob. His hypnotizing posts are reminiscent of the Pickup Artist movement I remember reading about years ago, the fictitious Jordan Chase villain from Dexter season 5 ("Take it!"), and other ego-centric characters who think manipulation is synonymous with influence and there is no cost too great to establish control over others. Very Ayn Randish (not a compliment).

There's a small part of me that hopes this thread is a glorious (yet irresponsible) troll of Trump supporters channeling his inner Catbert.

Sadly, unless trolling is revealed, he's added to the list of artists who's works I appreciate but don't like as a person with the likes of Orson Scott Card.

And Mel Gibson.

[bigred]

And Mel Gibson.

I mean, talent is talent.

[Poopadoop]

"Run for your life! He has a sign!"

[Keith]

looks like the clintons are now being linked to peadophile tripsdown to the bahamas as a result of the weiner laptop and emails

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddLXq6FTlnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prUvd8xZOAE

[JKDS]

Mel Gibson in Blood Father wasnt bad. I liked the movie

[Deanglow]

MY PREDICTION

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Zg3dv

[boost]

Another sad tally to add to my election experience is that I (after many Wuf posts) decided to look into this Scott Adams blog. What a nutjob. His hypnotizing posts are reminiscent of the Pickup Artist movement I remember reading about years ago, the fictitious Jordan Chase villain from Dexter season 5 ("Take it!"), and other ego-centric characters who think manipulation is synonymous with influence and there is no cost too great to establish control over others. Very Ayn Randish (not a compliment).

There's a small part of me that hopes this thread is a glorious (yet irresponsible) troll of Trump supporters channeling his inner Catbert.

Sadly, unless trolling is revealed, he's added to the list of artists who's works I appreciate but don't like as a person with the likes of Orson Scott Card.

I heard a interview with him a few months back, and he definitely didn't seem to be pro trump. He seemed to be convinced that Trump is intentionally using hypnosis, and he seemed to be in awe of his ability to do so, but he definitely didn't come across as pro Trump.

But I've only read a few posts on his blog, and not for a while now, so maybe you have a better read of him.

[JKDS]

Inb4 hillary decidedly, and predictably, wins the election

[oskar]

Here's why I'm not so sure about that: If I was someone who was going to vote for Trump and someone asked me who I was going to vote for, I would not tell them that I'm going to vote Trump.

[Poopadoop]

I can see him possibly winning too. I think it will be pretty close, but gawd I hope he doesn't win.

On another note, I think the entertainment value of Trump coming to grips with a loss are astronomically high. That's assuming he doesn't resort to encouraging anything crazy being done by his supporters, like some of those kooks out there who are ready to grab their muskets.