The V.P. Debate

This might be interesting.

Comments

  1. Time for a new thread.

  2. Mathius says:
    October 7, 2020 at 8:18 am (Edit)
    find out who made the rules.

    (A) Even if Jesus Christ, himself, came down from on high and made the rule, it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s an absurd rule and has all the effects I describe above and

    (B) “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a proclamation Thursday limiting the amount of drop-off locations for mail-in ballots to one site per county.”

    I’m thinking that this is being WAY overblown by the Left, so let me explain.

    Drop off boxes are NOT associated with the USPS. They are run by the State. These are mail in ballots which means that the USPS can pick them up at one’s mailbox, or they can be dropped at any USPS mail receptacle or Post Office.

    So what is the problem?

    • Drop off boxes are NOT associated with the USPS. They are run by the State. These are mail in ballots which means that the USPS can pick them up at one’s mailbox, or they can be dropped at any USPS mail receptacle or Post Office.

      That looks like a NOPE from me, pal.

      These are “voting clerk office locations”… that is, your vote is IN.

      Now, given that there’s a fair degree of uncertainty surrounding the Post Office, yes, you COULD hand them over to the USPS, but it seems reasonable to me that I might opt to go drop off my ballot in person with the clerk and be certain.

      So what is the problem?

      I might offer the inverse… why is it a problem to let a bigger county have more drop off locations?

      Who stands to stands to gain from this myopic one-size-fits-all approach?

      • If going to the polls or absentee mail-in isn’t enough for a person to exercise their Right to vote, then don’t vote. Voting is a Right that is a personal responsibility. There is no Right that says it is easy. Get off ass and vote or stay home. I really don’t care. Geez, I can see why those on the Left want everything for free….can ya’ll get any damn lazier?

      • I might offer the inverse… why is it a problem to let a bigger county have more drop off locations? Because in Harris County, an election was won by drop boxes coming in mysteriously late…..it swung an election for Mayor.

        • So shouldn’t the solution be to add more security / better monitoring?

          Surely both campaigns can afford to have watcher sit at each of the ballot locations for the full period and make sure there are no shenanigans by the other side. Cameras are also a thing, are they not? Hell, put it up on live-stream (cutting out the voter’s face), and let everyone on the planet watch to ensure no one is stuffing anything.

          Why is the appropriate solution “screw ’em, we’ll just make it harder to vote”?

          • There is no legal requirement to make voting easy. The only requirement is having places to vote and the absentee system in place. Voting is up to the person. Travelling to the polls is up to the person or mailing in the absentee ballot. Life ain’t easy, so please quit with the constant whining about it.

            • There is no legal requirement to make voting easy.

              Ooooohhhh.. sounds like someone needs to go review some Civil Rights Era legal precedents.

              Want to take a wild guess at how long it would take me to find a relevant SCOTUS ruling?

              And, yes, I know the VRA just got gutted, but it still exists.

              The only requirement is having places to vote and the absentee system in place.

              So, the rule is that everyone gets to vote at a convenient location or by absentee ballot.

              Except you.

              Your post office was just hit with major cuts and delivers mail on a 3 month lag and, due to a typo, your pollling place is located in the Netherlands.

              But, you know, hey, you have the right to vote and use the absentee system, right?

              Setting aside the hyperbole, my objection isn’t to the fact that it’s “hard” to vote. It’s that it’s hard-ER for certain people to vote than others.

              If it were equally hard for everyone, well, you’d just have fewer votes, but they’d still represent The People.

              But if you make it harder for SOME people than others, then you’ll suppress one group’s votes more than the others’. Right? I mean, that’s hard to argue against, isn’t it?

              By setting up a system whereby (largely blue) counties have it harder to vote than (largely red) counties, you are suppressing the Blue votes more than the Red votes and, thus, skewing the results.

              If we set up a system based on population – every million people get a drop off point – we’d have 4-5 in Harris, and those people could vote fine… but people in large spread out red districts might have to drive hundreds of miles to use their location. So, of course, they’re going to vote less. Which means, that the result is skewed in favor of Blue. Right?

              The problem ISN’T that it’s “hard” or that they don’t have access to X or Y. It’s that it’s uneven access.

              Trying just one more way, let’s say I get to decide where the polling locations are in my county. I then put a location on every corner in the Bluer areas and only a handful in Redder areas. I mean, sure, they still have access, right? They can still mail their ballots in, right? But who is going to be underrepresented in the final tallies?

              It’s about being FAIR.

              quit with the constant whining

              • You’re not making a very good case, considering that millions of us who don’t live in the city have to either drive (in my case 9 miles) to vote or use the USPS and vote absentee. To vote, we must all be personally responsible for exercising our Right.

                The only way you will EVER see fair is when the Crats win 100% of the time.

  3. Get a grip….. Tarrant, Dallas, and El Paso have had single drop off locations forever….this is nothing new for Texas and the reason that they are screaming in Harris County is because the Houston Mayor was elected by drop boxes suddenly turning up after polls close. You have three weeks to get your ballots in. If you wait until the last minute, shame on you.

  4. Just to get y’all on record in advance, just in case:

    IF the Presidential (or VP, for that matter) candidate dies before the election, what should happen?

    (Assuming that at least some of you will say “it’s up the states”) Does this mean you’ll accept it as a fair election if the Democratic governor signs a bill passed by the democratic legislature of [swing state] which throws out all votes for Trump, only accepting write-ins for Pence?

    What if they die after the election, but before swearing-in?

    • I am sure there is a protocol for this……somewhere. But, in a Colonel world, let me think about this…

    • ) Does this mean you’ll accept it as a fair election if the Democratic governor signs a bill passed by the democratic legislature of [swing state] which throws out all votes for Trump, only accepting write-ins for Pence?

      Hell NO! Unless it is current law. The good news is that Trump will not be dying. So much for wishful thinking by the Left.

      • Hell NO! Unless it is current law.

        But, let me guess… if Biden dies and a Republican governor signs a law passed by a Republican legislature rejecting Biden votes and only accepting Harris write-ins, you’d be just fine with that, right?

        The good news is that Trump will not be dying.

        He’s not out of the woods, but he has had the best medical care on the planet so his odds are better than most in his demographic (old, fat, and poor).

        • But, let me guess… if Biden dies and a Republican governor signs a law passed by a Republican legislature rejecting Biden votes and only accepting Harris write-ins, you’d be just fine with that, right?

          Wrong again, Son.

        • He’s not out of the woods, but he has had the best medical care on the planet Yes he has and, if what I saw on the media reports this morning is correct, they put him on a new type of medicine…..so that makes him a Guinea Pig, does it not?

          What I am finding funny is that media screaming about the fact that he is out already questioning doctors….and, it is showing one other thing….doctors are screaming about the fact that he is out already while his doctors see nothing wrong with it. There will NEVER be a consensus.

    • The 20th Amendment says the term of the current president and vice president ends at noon on Jan. 20. There is no provision to extend it. The amendment also says if the president-elect dies, the vice president-elect shall be sworn in as president at the start of the new term.

      However, the winning candidate doesn’t become president-elect until a joint session of Congress counts the votes from the Electoral College and declares a winner, Pildes said.

      By law, Congress is scheduled to formally receive the votes from the Electoral College on Jan. 6. The new Congress, which will be elected in November and sworn into office on Jan. 3, will preside.

  5. Im going to move this over, Mathius…because this is really interesting…and we take politics out of this because it is a business decision. This would be happening even if we did not know who Trump is….it is a tactic that is used all the time…and you correctly put it…a Ponzi. The worst offenders are venture capitalists but it is used a lot in business.

    you posted :

    To be clear, I’m looking at this as a study in business economics rather than a moral judgement on those who use Ponzi schemes based on credit to inflate, loot, and bankrupt companies until the lenders get wise and start attaching personal credit clauses to stop you.

    The question is “is Trump a bad businessman” or, perhaps, more accurately “is Trump screwed economically?” It is not “is Trump a bad person/politician” nor is it “is this a problem given that he’s the President.”

    More specifically, the question is: with 421mm due (plus another 100m+ potentially due to the IRS), and no chance he has that much liquid, how does he meet his obligations?

    Might key man clauses offer a clue to why he refused to divest when he took office – because he contractually couldn’t? At least not without forcing himself into bankruptcy.

    Might something like that make it borderline impossible to sell off certain assets to meet his obligations, resulting in a default?

    Might a default in any one of his enterprises trigger a cross-default which cause the whole house of cards to crumble?

    ::OBJECTION – CALLS FOR SPECULATION!::
    ::Sustained::

    Ok, yes, there’s a lot of speculation here.. but given what you and I know about business and what has been disclosed… what do you think the picture looks like in light of this?
    ————————————————————————————————

    Might key man clauses offer a clue to why he refused to divest when he took office – because he contractually couldn’t? At least not without forcing himself into bankruptcy. I don’t think so, in this case, because he has a “blind trust”…which you and I both know there is no such thing. This is required to be POTUS. HOWEVER, even contractually, because he is POTUS, this gets pushed down the road for at least another 4 years if he wins the Presidency again. There is a mechanism for this. But the other thing that bothers me, no matter whom, is the fact is it possible to be too big to fail? Are contractors and banks and lenders in a no win situation facing huge write offs? So, is it not in their best interest to ride this out and collect their interest payments? This is bad business, in my opinion….you do not rob Peter to pay Paul, to coin a well used phrase. State pension plans are in the same boat….nothing is liquid.

    Bankruptcy, especially chapter 11, can push things a looooong way and it is the creditors that make the decisions when facing the BK Judge.

    More specifically, the question is: with 421mm due (plus another 100m+ potentially due to the IRS), and no chance he has that much liquid, how does he meet his obligations? He doesn’t….assuming this is correct. I hope you are not relying on these leaked documents to the New York Times.

    Might something like that make it borderline impossible to sell off certain assets to meet his obligations, resulting in a default? I can see this being a problem, yes. But, and let us think about this realistically, you and I both know that the investment industry relies on leverage…..full leverage. What happens if your firm suddenly shuts down….do you have the liquidity to pay off everyone? Maybe, but I doubt it. Using me personally, I know that I cannot walk into my bank today and demand an immediate withdrawal of my cash. I want it now…..it is impossible. If that were possible, could a single individual force a default? I would surmise, yes. That is why banks have set limits. Does a “run” on a bank create a default situation?

    Might a default in any one of his enterprises trigger a cross-default which cause the whole house of cards to crumble? Of course, if he was stupid enough to agree to cross-default or even cross collateral. Remember, this is what the problem is with the ECM.

    yes, there’s a lot of speculation here.. but given what you and I know about business and what has been disclosed… what do you think the picture looks like in light of this? I do not think you are off track at all. But think about this…as a businessman, if I want to borrow money from a bank and save cash, you create a Proforma to offer the bank to bolster your request. A Proforma is nothing but speculation on future performance.

    However, is it possible to be so big that forcing a bankruptcy or forcing a default will create greater problems down the road than to grant extensions and hope for the best.
    ————————————————————————————————

    Now, for the record, and I think I have said this before, if Civilian Trump walked into my office with a business deal….I would show him the door.

    • is the fact is it possible to be too big to fail? Are contractors and banks and lenders in a no win situation facing huge write offs?

      If you owe the bank a million dollars and cannot pay, you have a big problem.

      If you owe the bank a billion dollars and cannot pay, the bank has a big problem.

      (paraphrasing Warren Buffett?)

      That is why banks have set limits. Does a “run” on a bank create a default situation?

      If I’m not mistaken, for amounts over X, you have the right to phone ahead 24 or 48 hours and they have to pay you.

      But, yes, you could, as a single individual, create a run but I don’t think you could (at least immediately) send it into default.

      There are, I’m sure, 1,000 mechanisms in place (including access to the Fed Window) to prevent this.

      However, is it possible to be so big that forcing a bankruptcy or forcing a default will create greater problems down the road than to grant extensions and hope for the best.

      Right… but I think it’s safe to assume he has lots of creditors, not just one. We know DB is a big one, but someone in his position probably has 50 creditors of various sizes. You’re essentially relying on rational self-interest to align for every single one of them that none of them push him into bankruptcy. AND you’re assuming that they’re all well enough capitalized to play the wait and see game. AND you’re expecting them all to reach the conclusion that waiting is better gutting the financial carcass now. Or am I misunderstanding?

      Now, for the record, and I think I have said this before, if Civilian Trump walked into my office with a business deal….I would show him the door.

      How did he even get past your door in the first place?

      If he tried to come into my office, he’d have fallen into the Burmese Punji trap under the front doormat.

      • Yes, there is a mechanism in place whereby you can give them a call and say I am coming in next week and I want my 10 million dollars……………………….but not without a great amount of scrutiny from the Fed about money laundering……I also know that many banks require you to fill out paperwork if you wish to take out more than 10k in cash.

        However, back to the defaults….First of all, if any creditor makes giant waves…simply file Chapter 11…..that gives you up to 18 months for a re-organization plan. Then you have a creditors meeting ( I have been to several where I was a secured creditor ),,,,and even then, the Fed BK judge has a great amount of latitude….even with a secured creditor. So, I think most BK judges, unless they hate Trump, would give whatever extensions requested. Remember that under Chapter 11, you can still control your cash and disbursements.

        • I also know that many banks require you to fill out paperwork if you wish to take out more than 10k in cash.

          AML laws are a thing and they are a serious pain in my hindquarters.

          You think what you deal with is bad – you should try accepting hedge fund subscriptions from nebulous entities around the planet and trying to guarantee it’s not a shell for someone on the FACTA list.. because if it is, all co-mingled can get frozen, basically locking your entire fund down for months and virtually guaranteeing yourself an SEC audit every year for the rest of time.

          But, at the end of the day, you DO have the right to your money. Paperwork be damned.

          Now, if you ever intend to withdraw $10mm in cash, be sure to let me know – I’ll be there in a jiffy to.. err… help you carry it all.

          However, back to the defaults….First of all, if any creditor makes giant waves…simply file Chapter 11…..that gives you up to 18 months for a re-organization plan. Then you have a creditors meeting ( I have been to several where I was a secured creditor ),,,,and even then, the Fed BK judge has a great amount of latitude….even with a secured creditor. So, I think most BK judges, unless they hate Trump, would give whatever extensions requested. Remember that under Chapter 11, you can still control your cash and disbursements.

          Yea.. sounds about right.

          I know a little bit about brankruptcy law, but it’s not my strong suit.

          My point isn’t that he wouldn’t be able to structure his way out of it through 11, but just that – as far as I can tell – his situation looks pretty dire.

          All that personally secured debt isn’t going to let him walk away with his current lavish lifestyle. And, though I admit to a bit of ignorance here, I’d be quite surprised if the bankruptcy judge lets him keep him mansions and penthouses, etc., through the re-org. I would expect that he would be forced into a more modest lifestyle. I don’t think you get to live the life of a highflying tycoon while fending off creditors in bankruptcy court – left, right, or center, I can’t imagine the judge being sympathetic to “I can’t pay right now, and if you’ll excuse me, I have to take my private jet back to my cliffside villa.”

          (Mathius had the hilarious idea of Trump being forced to take on lodgers in the West Wing. Excuse me.. I have a call I need to make to Netflix.)

          • You think what you deal with is bad Sir, there is no way in Hell’s 1/2 acre would I even attempt to do what you do….none……nope. I don’t even like my broker to this day except that he is a nice guy and doesn’t like to push junk for his percentage…..but the investment world is like used car salesmen…..a necessary evil for investors.

          • Isn’t that what Clinton did?

  6. Just read Robert Spencer’s book “Rating American Presidents”. His rating system is different than most academics in that his criteria was did the president make the country better. He does have a conservative bias. I’ll be a spoiler and post the results. The scale is 0-10 with 10 being good.

    1 1788 Washington 10
    2 1796 Adams 4
    3 1800 Jefferson 7
    4 1808 Madison 5
    5 1816 Monroe 7
    6 1824 Adams 5
    7 1828 Jackson 8
    8 1836 Van Buren 6
    9 1840 Harrison n/a
    10 1840 Tyler 8
    11 1844 Polk 4
    12 1848 Taylor 5
    13 1850 Fillmore 5
    14 1852 Pierce 1
    15 1856 Buchanan 0
    16 1860 Lincoln 10
    17 1864 Johnson 2
    18 1868 Grant 8
    19 1876 Hayes 2
    20 1880 Garfield 5
    21 1880 Arthur 8
    22 1884 Cleveland 6
    23 1888 Harrison 5
    24 1892 Cleveland 6
    25 1896 McKinley 4
    26 1900 Roosevelt 4
    27 1908 Taft 5
    28 1912 Wilson 0
    29 1920 Harding 9
    30 1922 Coolidge 10
    31 1928 Hoover 0
    32 1932 Roosevelt 1
    33 1945 Truman 6
    34 1952 Eisenhower 6
    35 1960 Kennedy 5
    36 1963 Johnson 1
    37 1968 Nixon 2
    38 1973 Ford 5
    39 1976 Carter 0
    40 1980 Reagan 9
    41 1988 Bush 2
    42 1992 Clinton 0
    43 2000 Bush 1
    44 2008 Obama 0
    45 2016 Trump 10

    Note that Harding and Grant, ones typically at the bottom are high on his scale. Almost all the democrats and several republicans in the 20th and 21st centuries were duds. TR does not rate very high. The winners are Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge and Trump followed by Harding and Reagan then Jackson, Tyler, Grant and Arthur.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      To be an historian and rate, one must look at what was going on at the time in the country and world. I always found it hard to defend a lot of TR’s use of executive authority and ramming in major changes to the way the country was run. But if you read, read and read more, you become familiar with the era, here in the US as well as the world, those of his contemporaries who said he “saved” the country were on to something. That fin de siecle era, was a very tumultuous period. Anarchy as well a Marxism were very evident. I always, because of my hard coal mining forebears, was interested in the formation of the early unions. The big busines rapscallions had way too much POLITICAL control to the detriment of the ordinary citizen let alone the 20 million immigrants of the period. TR saw that. His name for his type of politics, “The Square Deal” was quite accurate.

      Today we face a similar situation. the working classes have been sold out. The oodles of average immigrants have no hope of rising out of bare minimal existance and things are looking just ducky for Amazon et al. Now, the d. party in particular, has been very good with still portraying themselves as a friemd of the little guy. The opposition has done a piss poor job of debunking it.

      The first time I ever heard this piece of music and had it explained to me ….. well let us just say that was a serious turning point in my view of EVERYTHING. Not everybody becomes a Communist going to college.

      • I always liked Teddy. Larger than life and didn’t care if he ticked off people. Trump is similar.

  7. Now, on the news, I just saw Trump’s doctors give his health report. Oxygen levels are normal, No temperature in 4 days, no symptoms in the last 24 hours…..

    Biden’s doctors just afterwards said…that is impossible. Nancy Pelosi said the doctors reports are bogus.

    Sooooo…I guess no one wants to show he can get well fast because it shows that it is not as deadly as presented?

    • Sooooo…I guess no one wants to show he can get well fast because it shows that it is not as deadly as presented?

      Of course it isn’t as deadly, the medical profession has/is catching up with better treatments. The Crats for some reason think that they can demand the virus to stop spreading by tyrannical mandates. It’s more likely they are keeping it around longer.

    • Oxygen levels are normal, No temperature in 4 days, no symptoms in the last 24 hours…..

      Is this from the same doctors who said he was “slightly overweight”? Or the one who said he’s the healthiest person to ever run for the office? Or the one who felt it necessary to administer a dementia test?

      Ooh.. maybe it was the one who said it had been 72 hours since his diagnosis, meaning that he was infected during the debate and knew about it, but who then quickly walked that back?

      OR, maybe it was the one who said “they’re using all kinds of DNA, even alien DNA, to treat people,” and that demon sperm is the cause of cysts and fibroids?

      [Anita, I see you there… close the logical-fallacy tab]

      Biden’s doctors just afterwards said…that is impossible. Nancy Pelosi said the doctors reports are bogus.

      Maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue if Trump et al didn’t have such a long and storied history of overtly lying their asses off with flagrant disregard for objective reality?

      I mean, given that they lie about big things and little things just absolutely constantly can you help me understand why I should trust them?

      That’s not to say the claim itself is false, but assertions by this administration backed up by the equivalent of “dude, trust me!” are essentially worthless.

      Sooooo…I guess no one wants to show he can get well fast because it shows that it is not as deadly as presented?

      OR they think he’s just full of shit?

      Sooooo…I guess no one wants to show he can get well fast because it shows that it is not as deadly as presented?

      Maybe it’s not so deadly if you happen to have world-class healthcare, access to an entire suite of floors at Walter Reed and a helicopter to fly you there and live-in medical facilities to monitor you around the clock? You know, after you get your two experimental cocktails of drugs that aren’t available to the rest of us and, I’m sure, several gallons of convalescent plasma.

      Sooooo…I guess no one wants to show he can get well fast because it shows that it is not as deadly as presented?

      Trump survives a car crash and announces “see, car crashes aren’t dangerous at all! The risk is totally overblown” … are we all just supposed to ignore that he was driving an Abrams?

  8. Brilliant move by Trump on the Covid stimulus negotiations (that was going nowhere). It puts the process that has been mostly ignored back in the spotlight. Pelosi has two bipartisan bills that she won’t allow a vote. Pelosi wants Blue states bailed out for decades of poor management. Point the fingers where they belong AT PELOSI. She is truly hurting many in this country.

    • Brilliant move by Trump on the Covid stimulus negotiations

      Trump can’t shit his pants without you thinking it was a brilliant move.

  9. Would anyone care to refute this assertion:

    By setting up a system whereby (constituents of one party) have it harder to vote than (constituents of the other party), you are suppressing the former party’s votes more than the latter’s votes and, thus, skewing the results.

    This is wrong.

    • On the surface…..this is the when did you last beat your wife thing…….

      Now, if it can be proven that setting up a system benefits one party over the other…I would not be on board…..however, if you are talking the Texas ballot box issue…perhaps you should see where the boxes are located before you want to step off the curb….

      • this is the when did you last beat your wife thing…….

        Given my wife, she’d take the beating like a champ, meekly apologize for anything she might have done, then offer to cook me a special dinner to make up for it. Then I would wake up in a bricked-up soundproofed room where I would spend the rest of my (rather short) life until I ran out of air.

        Now, if it can be proven that setting up a system benefits one party over the other…

        What level of proof meets your standards? Preponderance? Shadow of a doubt? Reasonable doubt? Your personal opinion?

        Does it make it a difference if it’s deliberate or coincidental?

        Does it matter if it favors one party or not, just so long as (certain people) have a harder time voting that (other people)?

        And how unequal is “too unequal”?

        (To be clear, nothing is ever “EQUAL.” Even if the polling place is on your corner, it might be 3 steps closer to someone else. So you’ll never have perfection, but what if it’s 3 miles? 30 miles? 300 miles? At what point does the difference in voting “ease” constitute a “problem”?)

        however, if you are talking the Texas ballot box issue…perhaps you should see where the boxes are located before you want to step off the curb….

        Just generalities here.

        • What level of proof meets your standards? Preponderance of evidence showing it created a hardship….not conjecture.

          Does it make it a difference if it’s deliberate or coincidental? Absolutely

          Does it matter if it favors one party or not, just so long as (certain people) have a harder time voting that (other people)? Yes, it does matter….and hardship is a relative term.

          but what if it’s 3 miles? 30 miles? 300 miles? At what point does the difference in voting “ease” constitute a “problem”?) Good question, but in the instance of Texas we have extended the time to three weeks. You can get anywhere in three weeks. However, we do not think in terms of distance here…we think in terms of time. One hour is not too extreme.

          I will drive 7 miles to go vote but I will vote in person. I do not trust absentee balloting.

          • Also, Mathius………………Texas would not be this extreme if there was not a reason. Fraud has been pretty rampant here over the past 20 years…..

            Like I said, tho….Beto Boy has guaranteed Texas blue this time.

          • You can get anywhere in three weeks.

            That’s a lie.

            Three weeks is barely enough time to leave your driveway.

            However, we do not think in terms of distance here…we think in terms of time.

            Ha! Us Californians, too!

            The wife mocks me when she asks how far something is and I quote it in time.

            E: How far?
            M: 20 minutes.
            E: THAT’S NOT A UNIT OF DISTANCE!!1!

            But, damnit, it’s the USEFUL unit of distance. A mile on an open highway is much less than a mile through an urban city center at rush hour.

            One hour is not too extreme.

            Boy, that sure sounds like an OPINION.

            Maybe it’s not much for you since you have so much time on your hands (as shown by your SUFA usage). But for others, it might be a real burden to spare an hour. Let alone an hour each way. Plus gas. Or maybe they don’t even have a car.

            If you don’t have a car and live 47 miles from your drop off point, it might as well be located on the moon.

            I will drive 7 miles to go vote but I will vote in person. I do not trust absentee balloting.

            Would you drive FORTY SEVEN miles to do so?

            Each way.

            Maybe you would… but I bet you’d feel a tug that says “screw it.”

            • I believe in voting…and I, personally, would drive as long as it took. BUT…….you can mail in your absentee ballots. Just put a damn stamp on it and drop it in the mailbox….how friggin’ hard is that? And if you wait until the last minute…shame on you.

              • And if you don’t trust the post office because someone (who just so happens to have millions in FedEx and UPS stock and who was a major donor to one campaign) has been dismantling it?

            • One hour is not too extreme.

              You know… this hasn’t been sitting well with me…

              What if, instead of time, it was money?

              If you’re driving to the ballot box, waiting in line, and then driving back, that time is a lost opportunity cost. Maybe in lost wages. Maybe in lost family time. But it’s something you’re being made to PAY in order to exercise your rights.

              And by ratcheting up that cost in terms of time, they’re making it more “expensive” to vote.

              How is this substantively different from poll tax?

              • Would you like to know how much it costs to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights. How about the Right to a fair trial? How many have lost everything over their Right to Free Speech?

                You are WHINING!

              • How is this substantively different from poll tax? It is not different in the context you put it…and you are quite correct..we both know that time is money……so to save time and to save money, get an absentee ballot, stick a 50 cent stamp on it and send it in. But, if you snooze, you lose….take some damn personal responsibility and plan. That costs nothing.

  10. But, damnit, it’s the USEFUL unit of distance. Hell, yes…we look at things in time here. One hour on the road here could take you 75 miles.

    Now….time for a no shit story…I might have told this already so if I have, well, read it again.

    I have a very good friend that lives in Connecticut. He and his family flew down here to stay with us for a week…..Flies into DFW and rents a car and finds the the Firebase of the Colonel. So, the next morning I get up and start preparing some breakfast. The spousal unit and I like to cook. It was about 0730 and I noticed that they came to breakfast wearing swimsuits. I nonchalantly asked where were they going (thinking they were going to the water park in Arlington) and he said they thought they would run to the beach for the day. I raised an eyebrow and asked where…and he replied South Padre Island and he then brought out a brochure to show me where he was going….which was down at Brownsville…….the Southern most tip. I just sort of casually remarked that he better take some things for over night because he has a 9 hour drive from right where he is sitting. I said it is 540 miles to Brownsville…..he just had this blank stare….and then asked about Corpus Christie….I said, nope….405 miles. He asked about any place there was a beach close by and I said Galveston Island……360 miles. His look was priceless….he had no clue of the size down here….none. Just a quick jaunt to the coast…he thought.

    So, I guess in Connecticut, a nine hour drive would take him through several states.

    • Man.. I’ve had nearly identical experiences… “hey, let’s hit the beach” “ok, but it’s 45 minutes away” “oh, then can we go to Sea World?” “Sure.. 2 hours… plus another 2 for traffic.. each way.. if you’re lucky.”

      Maybe not quite as extreme as Texas, but we’ll, you know, the concept’s the same.

      California’s still a pretty big place.

      [Sound of Alaska laughing in the distance]

      So, I guess in Connecticut, a nine hour drive would take him through several states.

      I commute daily (or used to when I still left the house) to Connecticut (~20 minutes each way). Even after more than a decade, I still find it weird to “travel to another state to work.”

      So, I guess in Connecticut, a nine hour drive would take him through several states.

      9 hours in CT could take you to… depending where you start in CT, you could probably hit ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, NY, PA, MD, DE, NJ, MI.. maybe even VI or WV, and NC.. doesn’t quite> look like you could make it to Kentucky or Indiana, but maybe if you put your foot down a bit.

  11. FedEx and UPS stock Buy it.

    has been dismantling it? It is supposed to be a private organization and not a governmental organization anyway. Let it run on its own WITHOUT TAX MONEY…like it is supposed to run.

    • It is supposed to be a private organization and not a governmental organization anyway.

      Can you support this statement?

      Let it run on its own WITHOUT TAX MONEY…like it is supposed to run.

      It would if the government didn’t put all kinds of crippling restrictions on it including but not limited to the obligation to fund pensions for workers who haven’t even been born yet. No private company or government agency has that kind of obligation.

      You can’t control it like a public organization and put all kinds of non-business-driven demands on it and then insist that it be profitable like a business. You have to pick a lane.

      I’ve had managers make impossible demands of me, and then cut off every proposed solution or compromise, and then blame me for the failure. That’s what’s happening here. “Can we stop delivering on Saturdays?” “No.” “Can we refuse unprofitable packages / routes?” “No.” “Can we use our stores to sell other services and provide banking / check-cashing / etc?” “No.” “Can we not fund 75 years of pensions in advance?” “No.” … and then … WhY aRe YoU lOsInG mOnEy!!1!

      Disclaimer: the USPS, I believe, has a legal monopoly of letter-mail. As a private business, this would also go away, so there would be a downside to treating it like a private business… and I don’t pretend to have any clue that would all shake out.

      • The US postal service (despite quibbles by some) is a “quasi-governmental” organization. Before 1971, it was a department of government, supported by taxes. It was one of the original functions of Government, mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, it existed, in some form, even before the United States came into existence. However, in 1971, the Republican Congress (in it’s infinite “wisdom”), bowed to pressure from certain business pressure groups, and special interests, and decided to meddle into what had, heretofore, been one of the U.S. government’s most successful, popular, and well run ( for government) agencies. They decided that the Postal Service needed to be run for a profit, making money from the sale of stamps, and certain other income sources. What they created was neither “fish, nor fowl”. Special interests complained that they were unable to compete in certain areas against the Service, because the Post Office (as it was known then) had a monopoly, supported by taxpayers. On the other hand, neither was the new Postal Service allowed to be run as a completely self-sufficient business. For one thing, there was still the (now seen as “quaint”) idea of “universal service”, meaning the agency had to deliver mail to everyone, everywhere, within the U.S.. For another, unlike companies like UPS or FEDEX, the Postal Service was not allowed to buy and operate it’s own fleet of aircraft (much cheaper and more efficient), but had to contract out mass delivery to private companies. There were also restrictions placed on what other kinds of products and services the Post Office could sell (toys bearing logos and stamp designs, for example), or buy (uniforms, and vehicles), or even the setting of rates for their services, because again, private concerns complained about “unfair competition “. Still, until the Internet lead to the precipitous decline of First Class mail (profits from which were used to subsidize other types of mail), and constraints by Congress placed on pension funding, the Postal Service was still running a modest year-to-year profit. Now the Service is again being threatened by Mr. Trump and Republicans, who apparently wish the agency would disappear, and all its functions (or, at least, the profitable ones) taken over by private companies. As usual, the ones to suffer (besides its hard-working, dedicated employees), are the ordinary citizens of this country.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          An excellent analysis! Junior would approve (it is one of his pet gripes).

        • Agreed – and sounds about in line with what I said.. which might explain why I agreed..

          So where do you go from here?

  12. Holy Smokes! Tomorrow the debate moderator will get destroyed for her time keeping. I noticed it without a stopwatch, with one, Geez.

    • I only watched the first ~half, but my general feedback is:

      Moderator: I thought she did a decent job of keeping time. That’s about it.

      Harris: overplayed the emotion card / came off very fake. Didn’t give anything really useful. Missed several chances to hold Pense’s feet to the fire. Ran over her time every time.

      Pence: Weirdly kept calling the moderator Susan over and over until it became a running joke with me and my wife. Presented better. Had a fly land on his head. Ran over his time every time. Refused to answer several questions, instead opting for talking points.

      Useless “debate”… don’t get me wrong, I’d take either of them in a heartbeat over the respective tops of their tickets, but I don’t like either of them.

      • Yep, the spousal unit and I turned it off at the 32 minute mark. I told her that the moderator lost control in the first 10 minutes….after that, no one was going to respect the time. I watched a couple of reruns of Gunsmoke.

        • I watched a couple of reruns of Gunsmoke.

          My TV seems to reaaallly think I want to watch Perry Mason.

          I’m not sure why.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Did you catch the HBO new “Perry Mason” supposedly based on the original books from, way back. I doubt though tehre was a “lesbian” side story in the originals.

            Sometimes, the original period pieces are a damn fine read. Charteris’ “the Saint” books in the post WW 1 era, including prohibition, are really good.

      • JAC's Daughter says:

        Harris seems to have a really immature, teenage girl, passive aggressive, snottiness about her. Yikes 😬

        • It felt very forced to me, though… no?

          I’ve known “immature, teenage girl, passive aggressive, (entitled), snottiness” girls before… this just felt so… inauthentic. That’s not – at all – to say reality is any better, but it definitely felt to me like this was what was cobbled together by advisors during debate prep as a way of hopefully “winning” maybe by provoking a reaction they could paint as sexist or by coming off as the little brown girl being badgered by the old white male or to play on some sympathy or or or I don’t know… but it just felt contrived.

          That said, as I so often say, unless she’s a child mollester, I really don’t care about her personality or likability as long as she can (A) get the job done and (B) do things that I like – and this “debate” (which I will continue to put in quotes) gave me zero insight into any of that.

          By the way, what I said when McCain was running was that Palin was abnormally important because of his advanced age (honestly, if McC had picked a centrist, I have voted for him). I retain that position when considering Biden / Trump. Both are elderly… and there is a pandemic going on… the VP’s are unusually important this year. So I really wish I could have gotten something more substantive out of this. Not that I had any expectations of that.

          • JAC's Daughter says:

            it definitely felt to me like this was what was cobbled together by advisors during debate prep as a way of hopefully “winning” maybe by provoking a reaction they could paint as sexist or by coming off as the little brown girl being badgered by the old white male or to play on some sympathy

            Absolutely, 100%. Especially when she would put her hand up and tell him “excuse me, I am talking.”

            However, I’ve been an immature, snotty, passive aggressive, teenage girl and there were a few little moments that seemed way more “natural”, which honestly was more concerning. But I can’t deny that there is so much immaturity in politics today that it wasn’t more than anyone else.

            I think the best thing said by the talking heads after the debate, was there are few VP’s in American history who can be named, but this was a Presidential interview for Harris.

            • Especially when she would put her hand up and tell him “excuse me, I am talking.”

              ….

              30 seconds after interrupting him!

              was there are few VP’s in American history who can be named,

              Few… but not zero.

              but this was a Presidential interview for Harris.

              Yup.

              And she did not pass.

  13. So the key word today is mansplaining.

  14. One of the criteria for judging these debates is whether the contestants can develop a winning strategy and implement it. They are well rehearsed in their strategy. Why then would a candidate bring up such an easily debunked statement such as the Charlottesville good people comment. Harris did this to imply that Trump is a racist. But he clearly excluded white supremacists, the KKK and neoNazis in the very next sentence. Bringing the subject up permitted Pence to call her out on it. It was a strategic blunder. She is applying for a job that requires her to create and implement strategies that impact our country and the rest of the world. She will be meeting and negotiating with friendly and unfriendly foreign heads of state. She is not fit for the office.

    • Why then would a candidate bring up such an easily debunked statement such as the Charlottesville good people comment.

      Because 90% of her base believes it and the ones who don’t aren’t going to vote for her anyway and the ones who don’t know, well, don’t know

      Why would Pence say Trump “suspended all travel from China”? That’s an easily debunked statement. It was only Chinese nationals and allowed 40,000 people to come her from China after the ban.

      Why would he say (repeatedly) that Biden will ban fracking when that’s just not his stated plan.

      Why? Because 90% of his base believes it and the ones who don’t aren’t going to vote for him anyway and the ones who don’t know, well, don’t know.

      She is applying for a job that requires her to create and implement strategies that impact our country and the rest of the world. She will be meeting and negotiating with friendly and unfriendly foreign heads of state. She is not fit for the office.

      A) She certainly didn’t seem to have the disposition I would like (unlike Pence, who mostly DID).

      B) Her entire performance came off as a, well, performance. I have no idea how this will translate into her ability to craft a strategy or negotiate. The wife and I both noticed this – she seemed like a robot trying to mimic human expressions of outrage and concern. It was… unsettling.

      C) I don’t know if “not fit for office” is fair, but she’s certainly not what I would have chosen – especially after last night. That said, of Pence, Trump, her, and Biden, she’s the best pick. If you throw in a rotten tomato, I’d vote for the tomato for President.

      • Both Biden and Harris said they would ban fracking during the primaries. The last I heard from Biden is he would ban fracking on new leases of federal land. But that is a change from his position during the primaries.

        • That is his stated position on his official platform. Ban new leases on federal land.

          Which, frankly, is pretty milquetoast and is pissing off a lot of lefties. I don’t know enough about fracking to have an informed opinion on this, but the lefties I’m seeing are wishing that he would fully ban it.

          I honestly doubt he’d lose much from the center and probably gain a fair amount from the left (and the right is a lost cause) if he did fully ban fracking.

  15. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Flash back to 1933. FDR makes the speech….

    “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…..

    Flash forward to 2020 and tell me how it would be reported if FDR was a republican.

    • tell me how it would be reported if FDR was a republican.

      NEWSFLASH: REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SAYS SOMETHING ELOQUENT AND INSIGHTFUL WHILE BEING HONEST AND OPEN

      Washington DC. Today, the Republican President told the nation the unvarnished truth, saying "This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today." He then went on to spell out the situation, his concerns, what we, as a people can do, and how he hopes we will march forward not in blind-cheerleading reality-denying science-denying optimism, but in a true American spirit of resolve.

      Subsequent calls for redistribution of land, increased regulation, banking oversite and restrictions, and an instence on not being overly-nationalistic were met by panic by the Republicans and talk of impeachment. [...]

    • DJT tweeted something nonsensical about fear this morning. When we figure out what the xenophobic comment was about, we will let you know.

  16. Fracking has been around for decades…it declined a little when horizontal drilling was perfected..but the only way to get oil and gas out of shale is to fracture it. During the Obama administration, it was all about banning fracking….Biden carried it forward until he decided that he needs to get Pennsylvania and some of those borderline states back into the Democrat fold.

    So he does the only thing a politician can do….he changes his approach from an out right ban (which those of us in the oil and gas business do not believe) to “new” leases on Federal land with the proviso that it is phased out by 2050…..he plays the middle.

    There is just one simple logic to use here……if you want to be energy independent as we are now………keep fracking. We have an estimated reserve in the US alone for another 250 years and shale fields bigger than anything the Saudis or Russia have.

    So, it is that simple. He talks big and panders to the left but if you put into the hands of Congress, there will be no ban on fracking when it comes right down to it. Both sides of the aisle are deep into the pockets of the Oil and gas industry. Votes and money rule the day.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I wish you were right but what better way to continmue the destruction of the middle class than to unemploy them and then impovrish them.

      My paranoia is running 110% these days with the virtual spike on any and all positive stories about the virus, economy, POTUS, the 2016 “Russia” revelations etc by everyone except Fox and the other right of center sources. The “middle” has dropped any pretense of being the MIDDLE.

    • They do not need Congress to outlaw fracking. It can be done by EPA regulations. The EPA was politicized under Obama and still leans in that direction. Just tag any problem with the label it’s science and the discussion is over. It is no different than calling someone racist to kill a debate. Yes SKT, I am cynical too. Congress is becoming more and more irrelevant.

  17. I woke up early this morning and since I am somewhat of a military historian, was reading some strategy on war plans and why certain leaders made the decisions that they did. About half way through one of my archived writings….it suddenly dawned on me about leadership. Now, I do not expect the youngsters to understand this because they were not raised in the same way as us older farts…

    I was reading the Midway strategy of Yamamoto. It was ambitious and it was a clever plan but it was way too complex. It predicated itself on surprise and splitting forces to the Aleutian’s and the fact that the American’s were on their heels from Pearl Harbor and the Coral Sea. His Midway plan was a response to Lt Col Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo which proved that the Americans had resolve and that sacrificing some air crews for a morale purpose was not something he expected. Then I looked at the American response to all of this……and the way that Nimitz looked at the Pacific. The differing styes of leadership.

    My mind then wandered to the Pandemic of Covid….another invasion from the Far East. So, I contrasted leadership styles in time of war to our pandemic response today. Then the term sacrifice came to mind and I re-read a comment that Nimitz made….” we will do the best we can with what we have.” The other main strategy of Nimitz was that he knew that sacrifice was going to be needed and he was NOT afraid of sacrifice to win.

    I wonder if we had leadership of that sort, would we be in a better position today concerning the Covid. It appears to me that we played safe…we closed down…we all but destroyed an economy that we will now be years re-building. At one time, as a country, we were resourceful doing what was necessary to win. It seems to me that we have become a bunch of “whiney” babies when a crises develops. We are quick to place the blame and we are quick to rule by committee…..but we do not fight.

    What would a Nimitz do……he would not have shut a country and economy down. He would have said sacrifice is going to be necessary to beat this thing. Yes, we may lose 400,000 and maybe even a million…but until we figure out how to beat this Covid, we do not hibernate….we do not cower like mushrooms in the dark…we will do the best we can with what we have. We adapt, we overcome, and we improvise but you do not do it from sticking your head in the sand and crying all is lost. He would have said, ” I do not care what the world thinks of us”….and he would be correct.

    Trump made a drastic mistake. He did not follow his instincts, at first, and he listened to advisors who had personal agenda’s. Now, I think he has it correct….open the economy up and let the American people decide how and when and where to fight this Covid. We are smart and we are resilient even against a nasty little bug that makes us sick. We are letting a damned virus dictate to us….we should be dictating to it. We should be standing up and say…”Take your best shot but we are not shutting down.” That is leadership and leadership is lonely and not popular.

    Military commanders make life decisions everyday….and sacrifice is part of the process. We make decisions on who lives and who dies. There are no safe places. That is our job.

    Trump is late to the party….but I think he is correct. Open up the economy and let us save a country. There is no sacrifice too large.
    ——————–
    THUS, the rantings of an old Colonel are over for now. Time for a Dr Pepper.

    • JAC's Daughter says:

      As a “youngster” I couldn’t agree more. I think our leadership in this country is weak and people today are weaker than ever.

      • JAC's Daughter says:

        The millennials more than anyone. 😦

        • Define “weak”?

          • JAC's Daughter says:
          • JAC's Daughter says:

            I’d love for you to teach me how to write something and attach a hyperlink to it. I can do it in work docs but not on this site for some reason.

            Areas where I think we’re weak:
            -work ethic
            -self responsibility
            -communication skills
            -problem solving skills
            -relationships
            -compassion
            -forgiveness
            -leading by example
            -integrity
            -family values
            -finances

            The list goes on.

            • A hyperlink is easy enough… I’m going to replace a carror with a brace for the below because, otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to read it.

              [ –>> shift + comma
              ] –>> shift + period

              To do a hyperlink you’d do something like the following:

              [a href=”http://YourWebsiteHere.com”]Your link is here[/a] but not here.
              (don’t forget those quote marks!)

              And that will come out as

              Your link is here but not here.

            • Some of those I tend to agree with… others.. not so much…

              I wonder.. what support can you offer for these?

              • JAC's Daughter says:

                -work ethic – People today have an entitled attitude and think they deserve something without working for it. It takes time, effort, consistency, grit, and sacrifice to earn the things people now think they “deserve”. People with a college education think just because they went to school that they deserve a job. Cali recently passed a law that there needs to be a minority on company boards. Are they the most qualified or worked the hardest to get there? Nope, now it’s about them being a minority, what kind of example does that show? People looting business and stealing things like phones and TV’s and saying they deserve these things, but yet won’t go get a job to be able to afford them. People currently refusing to go back to work because they make more off unemployment than they did in their job. These are just some recent examples.

                -self responsibility- People are constantly blaming EVERYONE and EVERYTHING else for their problems and where they’re at in their life. I see this on the daily. It’s my boss’ fault, my spouse’s fault, my parent’s fault, my ancestor’s fault, my teacher’s fault, the government’s fault. How often do you hear someone say “You know what? This is all my fault and I’m the only one who has the ability to change it.” Very few people take responsibility for their life, actions and decisions, yes this include politicians. They need a lesson from MJ “I’m starting with the man in the mirror, I’m asking him to change his ways, and no message could have been any clearer, If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change.”

                -communication skills- I find very few people have the ability to communicate intelligently. I think this goes hand in hand with the ability of thinking for ourselves and using all the information we’ve gained over our life to be able to listen to others, process, and form our own thoughts to communicate how we agree or disagree. We’ve lost the ability to be open and curious to learn from one another, especially those with different opinions. I also think very few people have the ability to communicate how they feel without getting super emotional. People have the balls to post something nasty online, but their tail goes between their legs if they are ever confronted in person, and then they go post about it to get sympathy from their virtual following to help lick their wounds and gain approval so they can justify their thoughts. This is not the ability to have a conversation with someone and work through whatever the issue was.

                -problem solving skills- It requires people to be able to think through things, see other perspectives, have hindsight and foresight to be able to problem solve, all skills of which I see little of these days. It seems like they try to solve problems by blaming others, attacking and trying to smear reputations instead of using their own ability to solve a problem.

                -relationships- I think social media has created false relationships and because of this it has bled into people’s ability, or lack there of, to create real relationships.

                -compassion- I think this boils down to people having the ability and desire to want to understand each other and be there for one another regardless of beliefs, politics, race, sex etc, I think we live in a culture now that is all trying to one up each other, and again blame everyone else for our problems, which does not cultivate a culture of compassion and understanding. I can understand why people hate Trump and it doesn’t bother me if they do, but if certain people find out I support him I’m a racist? Just one example.

                -forgiveness- Goes hand in hand with compassion, but also I think so many people have been so hurt and scarred with how others have treated them that they’ve lost the ability to truly forgive, show compassion, and love regardless of the shit that’s happened in their life. More than ever, I’m seeing people who are all about “getting even” over being the bigger person and moving on.

                -leading by example- Again, I think today it’s more about blaming others than taking responsibility. Leadership 101, people earn more respect when they live the words they speak. People trust and want to follow someone who’s actions align with their words, yet very few do. Very few people are willing to live in a glass house. It’s “do what I say not what I do” or “listen to what I tell you, but don’t track my actions”.

                -integrity & family values- I see very few people truly stand by their morals and values. The minute money, power, popularity, and the “feel goods of life” come into play, people are all over the damn place on what they stand for and is now important to them. I think where people spend their money and their time shows what they value most in life, not what they say they value.

                -finances- Society idolizes debt, and keeping up with the Jones’. This is a weak mentality that can wrap up all the rest into that we care more about how we look, what we think we deserve, and what other’s think of us over a life of “outside your mortgage, don’t buy it if you can’t pay cash for it.” I love the thought that if right now, everything people “owned” that wasn’t fully paid for in cash disappeared, what would they have? My conclusion….not much.

                This, of course, is my own opinion based on what I see today. I also know a lot of amazing people (mostly in the older generations) and I know there are a lot of great people I don’t know out there, but I think this today is the “majority” of our society.

    • JAC's Daughter says:

      • Democrats / Republicans: Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice all freedoms for their party. (they just disagree on which ones to sacrifice)

    • Body counts started with the TV war in Vietnam. It has only gotten worse since then. It is now to the point OMG someone died. Yes, Trump’s initial instinct was to shut down long enough to get resources built, i.e., flatten the curve. But once that phase was done, the MSM panicked the population. The Dems saw the opportunity to destroy the Trump economy and artificially create Maher’s recession. So we had the shutdown. Faucci and the CDC crowd only looks at the pandemic deaths hence did not object despite the harm it did to the health and well being of the general population. Add to that the fact that the legislation made it profitable to declare any death that had a positive Covid test as Covid, we got an inflated body count that further panicked the MSM. Why the CDC permitted or encouraged this confusion in the cause of death I do not know but is sure mucked up the statistics. Even the testing was flawed with multiple positive tests for single person being counted as separate incidents. My guess is that this was due to not being able to link test results to SSNs since this would violate HiPPA. Then is several states we dumped active cases into nursing homes and killed off a lot of elderly. I still wonder if this was on purpose to save Medicare and Medicaid. So the numbers got further inflated which amplified the fear even more.

      If you will recall, I said early on that we could not stop this virus and it was going to move through the entire population. The shut down just prolonged the inevitable. But I was labeled cruel and heartless. Well schools remain closed despite all the scientific evidence saying they will weather the disease easily. Had we kept schools open, we would be a lot closer to herd immunity now. We opened university, experienced a few inevitable cases, then closed and sent the students home. Brilliant move. In short, once we got through the initial curve flattening we did everything wrong because we could not accept the inevitable.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        After seven months (next week) it is OBVIOUS that the alleged “scientists” at the CDC and NIH have no idea of what they are talking about!

        Six and one half months beyond the “14 days to flatten the curve”, the curve apparently won!

        So, let us all start listening to the “other” scientists, who have been pooh-poohed who told us to grow up, protect the vulnerable and let us acquire immunity.

        Had we done this, we would quite probably be looking at it now for quite some time in the rear view mirror.

        So, let’s put Fauci out to pasture with a nice gold watch and invite the NIH guys from Sweden here to tell us how to handle this like they did.

        20 some years from now, when the histories are written and all the dumb asses are retired, some people are going to not only look bad but look ridiculous, as ridiculous as the “healers” who used to bleed you in the Middle Ages and think the plague came from “bad air”. .

  18. It turns out that Lincoln did not refuse to nominate Chief Justice Taney’s replacement before the 1864 election. The Senate was out of session until December thus any nomination was moot at that point. He also wanted the potential candidates to campaign for his re-election. Thus we have another of the many lies told last night.

    • JAC's Daughter says:

      Thanks for this! I think they rely on people not taking the time to fact check.

      • They Absolutely rely on people not fact checking. And, unfortunately, most people don’t take the time to fact check.

        • They Absolutely rely on people not fact checking. And, unfortunately, most people don’t take the time to fact check.

          Absolutely.

          Alas, even “fact checking” has become increasingly hard of late.

        • Another problem is that some so called facts are dependent on the agenda. Let me think…..Oh, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot comes to mind.

  19. Welp! They plotted to kidnap Whitmer. FBI is on it. News conference at 1 pm. I don’t know who “they” is but there were several raids last night where the story is a kidnapping plot.

    Michigan, will not be out stupid- ed

    • Mathius’ First Law: People. Are. Dumb.

    • When I read your post and looked it up, I laughed so hard I almost cried. These nitwits wanting to spend even one minute with half Witmer is proof they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

      • Still haven’t looked it up since I’ve been home. Heard a blurb on the radio where they were labeled right wing militia. Immediately, my BS meter was pegged. Put me down for false flag staged event.

        • One of the conspirators posted a video with a Antifa flag in the background. Not right wing militia.

            • Pretty sure that’s the big A flag on his wall.

              • Thanks for the video..

                T-ray: the guy had an ANTIFA flag.
                Mathius: Proof?
                Anita: here’s his anarchist flag.

                Meanwhile: “Trump is not your friend, dude.” Man, that sounds like a good ad slogan. But, yes, it does sound like he’s not a Trumpist.

            • Woops. My fault. I thought TRay said Anarchist. BUT…there have been Anarchist flags at plenty of the riots. We know the riots are Antifa…doesn’t it follow that they are one in the same? I would group them together.

            • What is the stripped flag to the right?

              So once again, the Dems and the MSM make unsubstantiated claims that the right is violent. The lie travels around the world before the truth leaks out. Then the truth is suppressed and millions of people go to the poles with disinformation since a fact once learned is difficult to unlearn. Mathius, why do you doubt me?

  20. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/another-coup-trump-slams-crazy-nancy-after-speaker-unveils-25th-amendment-panel

    I personally think Trump has been hurt this week, by so many republicans getting sick. But this scheme by Pelosi, is she trying to help him.

    • Pelosi is malevolent, sociopathic, narcissistic, and grifter.

      She has made something like $200mm since taking office – so, even without knowing anything else, we can definitively add corrupt to that list.

      But one thing she isn’t is stupid.

      She is smart and savvy and knows damned well how to play the game.

      And, like McConnell, she plays it as a blood sport.

      I agree that this panel sounds like a losing proposition. But if she’s doing it, you can bet the farm that there are one of two reasons: (A) she thought it was advantageous to do so (eg she thinks it will hurt him) or (B) she was forced into it against her will (eg impeachment hearings).

      My blind guess would be that, maybe, by convening such a panel, she can breach his private medical records. It would be perfectly in line with her character (or lack thereof) to use such a panel to find out all about his performance on the dementia test (no way he got a perfect score) and show the cocktail of drugs they gave him for COVID, etc. And then, of course, leak it all when the time is right.

      • Maybe it’s just a practice run for when Joe is sworn in?

        ((shrugs))

        • Well.. I mean… she’s not that far down the order of succession… maybe that’s the plan?

      • Pelosi just said that this 25th Amendment Commission was for future Presidents. I think she just named Trump the winner in November.

        • Careful. This could be the bait and switch to get Joe out of office and “install” (lookin at you RBG granddaughter) Harris. But that aint happening either.

  21. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    I would remind everyone of the Fort Dix Six. That was six, less than bright mid eastern individuals who were “infiltrated” by the FBI. Somewhere along the way, somebody initiated a plot to “bomb” Fort Dix using a pizza delivery truck. To this day all six convicted swear that it was the FBI informant who hatched the plot!

    They will be in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

    This reminds me, why is Sirhan Basher Sirhan, who had no previous criminal record, still in prison for killing Bobby Kennedy? What ever happened to liberal/progressive “compassion”. Cop killers, killer rapists, rapist killers all get out but NOT him. Sirhan, by the way was NOT a Muslim but a Palestinian Christian refugee.

  22. Question for the gaggle: Why are we calling the attempted kidnappers a “militia” and not “terrorists” or, perhaps even more accurately, “insurrectionists” or “treasonists”?

    Could you imagine the reaction if a bunch of BLM guys right to kidnap a Republican mayor? It’d be the biggest story on the planet. Trump would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

    If this was a group of Muslims trying to kidnap a sitting governor, do you think people would take it in stride like this?

    • Why are we calling the attempted kidnappers a “militia” If you are talking this fringe group calling themselves the Wolverine Watchmen, whom took their cue from the movie Red Dawn, according to their own statements….they are nothing but anarchists, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc……………..talk to your own beloved media, Mathius. They labeled them.

      They do not even qualify as right wing fringe groups…..they are no different than Antifa or BLM…..none.

      • BTW, I do not even classify the Antifa and BLM as left wing fringe groups….they are scum and anarchists, terrorists, and insurrectionists as well.

      • talk to your own beloved media, Mathius. They labeled them.

        They do not even qualify as right wing fringe groups…..they are no different than Antifa or BLM…..none.

        Maybe.

        But if that were the case, I would expect Trump et all to be screaming to the rooftops about anarchists and law and order.

        I’ll be fair, I have seen condemnation – and efforts to paint them as anarchists etc – and Trump even had this to say “I do not tolerate ANY extreme violence. Defending ALL Americans, even those who oppose and attack me, is what I will always do as your President!” – which was very nice, albeit tucked into the middle of a 3-tweet screed where he attacked Whitmer for, well, a lot.

        But what I DON’T see is the dialed-up-to-11 outrage.

        If a group – maybe left, maybe anarchist, had tried to kidnap Abbot, you can bet there’d be a 9/11 scale response.

        • If a group – maybe left, maybe anarchist, had tried to kidnap Abbot, you can bet there’d be a 9/11 scale response. Not from the US government.

        • By the way, your litmus test cartoon is hogwash…….However, even an attempting kidnapping of any governor, does not rise to 9-11 furor……not in my book anyway.

        • But if that were the case, I would expect Trump et all to be screaming to the rooftops about anarchists and law and order. Yes…yes he should and so should the media instead of labeling “militia”. The media should be calling them out as they should be calling all the others out……..but it is one sided.

          Just exactly like Facebook’s move today. The full court press is on…..and if I was on the left side of the meter…..it is exactly what I would do. Time for the full court press.

        • My first answer to your original question on the subject was “It’s 2020, nothing is surprising”.

          However, I haven’t read much about it other than what little has been put out. The whole idea is of kidnapping a Governor after rushing a Statehouse is the thinking of some folks who aren’t very bright.

          • I’ll give you a hint… go look at the mugshots and ask yourself how much genetic diversity it looks like there is in their respective family trees….

            • Who wrote the rule that anarchist and militia must follow EEO rules or are you just trying to imply they are a bunch of racists? Cite your reference.

              • I’m not sure what you’re getting at here… In light of Gman’s comment that they seem like “some folks who aren’t very bright,” I’m just suggesting that some of them look inbred.

            • I don’t know what inbred would look like. But people with some family secrets might have a better idea 😉

  23. WILMINGTON, DE—Today during a campaign stop at a soundstage in the north corner of his basement, Joe Biden took the time to congratulate Michelle Obama on a stellar debate performance.

    “Look folks,” he said to the loose change in his couch. “Mrs. Obama did a swell job last night. Very proud of her. And to think just a few short years ago she was stocking shelves at the grocery store! I really liked the part where she rode an elephant and then a kangaroo. That was neat!”

    “Aw Joe!” said Michelle Obama when she received word of Biden’s congratulations. “Such a kidder, that guy. We love old Joe!”

    Politifact rated Joe’s statement as “mostly true,” since Michelle Obama had in fact released a video response to the presidential debates a couple of days ago and that was “basically the same thing as debating.”

    Biden’s campaign spokesperson Paddo Peesoy also released a statement saying: “We are happy to report that Biden is in excellent health and is also still not a racist in any way.”

    After Biden’s statement, the campaign quickly called a lid for the remainder of the day to give him time to study his running mate’s Wikipedia page.

    • SALT LAKE CITY, UT—Joe Biden’s running mate appears to be in deep trouble after speaking in tonight’s debate and letting everyone hear what her voice actually sounds like.

      “This is a disaster for us,” said campaign manager Jennifer O’Malley Dillon to anonymous sources. “We really didn’t think people were actually going to watch this debate, let alone with the sound on.”

      According to polls of citizens who watched the debate, the very thought of hearing Kamala Harris’s voice and signature cackle for the next 4-8 years makes 3 out of 4 people want to lay down in front of a steamroller.

      “Never thought I’d say this, but maybe my old lady’s voice ain’t so bad,” said Bob Ataboy, a local factory worker.

      The campaign vowed to address this situation and has set up Harris for personal classes with famous likeability coach Hillary Clinton.

  24. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15881

    The only reason I posted this, is because, I find it nauseating funny that he teaches Ethics.

  25. Uh oh……………..it appears that the NBA did not like the push back from the fans on the BLM messaging on their jerseys……..they are dropping the messaging for the next year concerned about the 65% viewer loss of professional basketball since their decision to message.

    • the 65% viewer loss of professional basketball since their decision to message.

      Are you sure it’s not because the NBA is boring basketball played by overpaid players with overinflated egos and (often) poor sportsmanship somehow made even more boring by the lack of a crowd?

      I’d much rather they put a camera on a random NYC cage-court so I can watch nobody’s play their hearts out for the love of the game and get elbowed in the face onto concrete only to spit out some teeth and keep going.

      Plus, no one is trying to charge you $9.50 for a hot dog.

  26. Ray Hawkins says:

    Colonel……today…..in 1950 – U.N. forces, led by the First Cavalry Division, cross the 38th parallel in South Korea and begin attacking northward towards the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. Fort Hood boys right?

    • My uncle is 96 and in a home. My cousin complains about the same thing. No contact. But if he gets sick and goes to the hospital, then they can visit. Go figure.

  27. U.S.—Facing growing frustration from parents over prolonged school closures, the American Federation of Teachers has released a statement promising school will resume just as soon as all the public school teachers are done campaigning for Biden.

    “We realized that these prolonged school closures were a perfect opportunity to mobilize our 1.7 million-member union to get out the vote for Joe Biden,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Plus, the Biden campaign didn’t have to pay them since they are already being paid a full salary with taxpayer dollars. It was a win-win for us!”

    According to sources across the country, public educators have been dutifully going door to door to make sure they harvest every Biden vote they can before the November election.

    “So if you’re wondering why the schools still aren’t open, that’s why. We promise we’ll start teaching your dumb kids again as soon as the important work of defeating Donald Trump is completed,” Weingarten said.

    • I thought they were too afraid to come out of their bunkers?

      • A few of the things that are being g talked about in my neck of the woods is that 9nce the election is over, the Covid restrictions will follow close behind and be ended.
        The top 10 cities with highest unemployment 9 are Crat run and the one that isn’t is in a Crat run State.
        Mortality rates have dropped significantly in all age groups since the Spring spike.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        If my former fat governor “Chris Christie” with asthma and pre diabetes can be releaed from the hospital after less than a week, then it may be tiome to blow the “all clear” sirens.

  28. https://foia.state.gov/search/results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email

    Hillary Clinton’s emails that have just been released.

  29. LAS VEGAS, NV—Joe Biden was asked yet again today if he plans to abolish the Constitution, overthrow Congress, dismiss the Supreme Court, and set up a Communist regime to take their place. Once again, Biden refused to answer the question, saying voters will find out whether he plans to seize the means of production and institute a one-party rule, U.S.S.R.-style.

    “Look, if I tell you whether or not I plan to institute a new Communist order, establishing a glorious worker-led revolution that will lead us out of this capitalistic nightmare and into a paradisical utopia, that would become the headline,” Biden said. “That would be playing Trump’s game. So I’m not going to say whether I support this great idea.”

    “Don’t voters deserve to know this?” asked a concerned reporter.

    “No, they don’t deserve to know,” Biden snapped back. “And you’ll be the first thrown into the gulag, bucko, I tell you what. Write that whippersnapper’s name down, Kamala.”

  30. For Mathius

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    FEDERAL Judge overturns Texas Governor’s order for only one drop off box per county.

    Oh the irony. As part of his justification the Judge cited the possible chaos of the US Postal Service trying to handle all the mail in ballots. You know, the mail in ballots that the Dems are claiming is NO PROBLEM.

    In another ruling, different Judge, it was claimed the Trump campaign had not proven there was any fraud yet that would damage them. Got that? Trying to avoid the massive potential fraud of suddenly using mail in ballots is not ripe for ruling. You have to prove fraud first.

    Talk about a Catch 22.

    • I saw this over the weekend and was eager to bring it here for some… lively.. debate.

      I haven’t reviewed the ruling yet, but it sure feels like another backward ruling (judge decides the one-box rule is bullshit (which it is) and then works backward to find a justification – see also Roe / Obergefell).

      Time permitting, I’ll try to read the ruling and report back.

  32. In further tales of the Party of Law and Order™, a federal court has ruled that William Perry Pendley, who is/was acted as the acting head of the Bureau of Land Management (the “original BLM”), was not confirmed by the Senate to the role as Constitutionally required.

    The court ordered that he vacate the position immediately and that all decisions made during his illegal tenure be held in abeyance until reviewed by his legitimate successor.

    So, of course, being a member of the Law and Order Party™ and appointed by the Law and Order President™, Director Pendley immediately stepped down, right?

    AHAHAHAH OF COURSE NOT!

    However, Pendley said in a Tuesday interview that Judge Morris’ decision “has no impact, no impact whatsoever.”

    “I have the support of the president. I have the support of the Secretary of the Interior and my job is to get out and get things done to accomplish what the president wants to do — which means increase recreational opportunities on federal land and to increase opportunities for jobs, so we can [economically] recover back to where we were pre-pandemic,”

    Source.

    (And, just for the avoidance of doubt, and to head off the obvious retort – the point I’m making here is not “Trump was wrong to appoint him.” (A) I can’t speak to that and (B) it is my understanding that due to partisan gridlock, there have been perpetual issues with this kind of appointment. Rather, my objection is to “a court of competent jurisdiction said the guy needs to go and (A) he’s refusing and (B) he apparently has the support of the President in his refusal to obey a lawful court order.”)

    (To be a bit clearer, this is like saying: I’m not mad at my kids for making a mess. I’m mad at them for balking at my instructions when I told them to clean it up.)

    (To be just a bit clearer, notwithstanding what I said two paragraphs above, none of this should in any way imply that I’m accepting of politicians illegally appointing heads of departments (if that is what they did) regardless of party. I want everyone to follow the law or change it. But my objection here is to the bigger problem of outright defiance of a legal court order…. so it’s a bit like saying “I’m not mad at my kids for making a mess. I’m mad at them for balking at my instructions when I told them to clean it up… and also a bit for making the mess in the first place… but mostly for the later issue.”)

    • I think you missed an important part of this. This guy IS the Deputy Director of policy and programs. That hasn’t changed. So, no need to step down. He just cant act as the director of the whole show.

      Nothing burger.

      • That sure doesn’t sound like what the court is saying, but at this point, I don’t know enough to say you’re wrong – I will review.

        THAT SAID: assuming that it is what it appears – that the court says X and he says “no, and the President supports me,” do you see a problem with this?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          GMan is correct on this one. And Pendley is talking about the effect of the court’s decision, not that he would ignore the order.

          He in fact vacated the position in dispute the next day or two after the ruling.

          So you are also misreading and thus misrepresenting what it was he said.

          But I do agree there is still an issue. He is setting policy without a Director to supervise him. Which brings us back to the whole confirmation problem. I do share the bigger concern. That a POTUS or his Secretaries are trying to skirt the established process for filling jobs and running the agencies. This is something Clinton/Gore and Obama did all the time.

          I hated it then and I hate it now. This is a classic, two wrongs do not make a right.

          • If he is the deputy director and there is no directory, then by default he is the director. Any decisions that he cannot legally make would flow to the next level up. If BLM reports directly to POTUS, then POTUS must sign any regulations or other decisions.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BLM director works under The Secretary of Interior. Either one of his/her Deputies or the Secretary proper.

  33. Gman:

    Would you have an objection if there was a higher tax on guns and ammo if you were demographically more likely to vote Republican? Probable Democratic voters get one price. You get to pay a higher price.

    You both are free to exercise your 2A rights.. it’s just a bit more expensive for you than for me.

    How would you feel about this?

    • Because each States tax laws vary, that’s not a great hypothetical. However, if local taxes were higher then say the next county, if it’s significant, I would travel.

      Actually, other than the normal sales tax, I would be against it totally, politics aside.

      • However, if local taxes were higher then say the next county, if it’s significant, I would travel.

        I forgot to mention – you’re only allowed to buy firearms in your home-county. In fact, only at a specific store. And the state has determined that your store has a 20% added tax that mine doesn’t.

        And, no, you can’t just have me buy it for you, nor can you buy it in another state – that’s illegal, too. There’s no way “around” it in this hypothetical. If you want to buy a gun, your state has set it up such that you have to pay more than I do for the same item. No not just a rounding error – a deliberate and significant difference. The state has determined that, because you’re a Trump supporter, you’re intrinsically more violent and more easily manipulated, so they’ve decided your a higher risk, you’re not the kind person your state wants to own a gun. So, they are trying to charge you more in the hopes that you will be less likely to buy (or maybe be unable to afford) so that you don’t/can’t exercise your 2A rights.

        They’re not saying people can’t have a gun. In fact, it’s very clear, this would be illegal to do.
        They just don’t want people like YOU to have one, so they’re making it more expensive for you in order to systemically dissuade you (and people like you) from making the decision to exercise the rights you do have.

        Is this ok?

        • How bout just get to the point? Is it the Texas vote collection boxes? Abortion? Why is there always an analogy or hypothetical? To show bias? Fine. Everyone has it. So what is the point of your questions?

          • Anita……..it does not matter about the voting boxes in Texas…..simply watch what happens. There will be one box…….only one….no worries. I will find out tomorrow. I will be voting then in Parker county…will see. If I was you…….bet on Texas. We will simply be quiet about it and do it our way….

            • Just A Citizen says:

              So VIOLATING a lawful order issued by a Judge is OK????

              Or are you recognizing Texas is wrong but it will continue to do wrong regardless?

              • JAC….we are violating one now. It still takes two forms of picture ID to vote and Texas stipulates what is considered a valid form. A Federal Judge ordered a rewrite of the jurisdictional lines, some time ago, and we still have the same jurisdictional lines. Now, right or wrong, and this is where my hypocrisy shines and I will admit it, I like to think that I am a law and order guy….I have made many statements on here that I am a strict interpretation sort of thinker…….but Mathius, over time, has convinced me that selective enforcement is a viable thing. So, I have changed my mind some when it comes to legislating from the bench. So, I think that a state can choose, selective enforcement, which laws they wish, especially if there were state laws already in place for years and you finally find an activist judge to change state law without precedent.

                So, no, I will not consider Texas to be wrong….it is never wrong….and when Texas IS wrong, it will still never be wrong. ( A Texan point of view, of course ).

                Seriously, because Texas has proven that fraudulent voting does occur, then it has responsibility to try to curb it. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, I will admit, but we have seen in the last three elections where fraud resulted in swinging some elections.
                ——————————-
                On the ID issue…..it is time for the spousal unit to renew her Texas drivers license….she gets her appointment and then goes into the Department of Public Safety to renew. It takes TWO forms of ID to renew…..count ’em….TWO. The mere fact that you had a license before does not matter. So, she takes her passport in and since her drivers license is not expired, it qualifies as one form of ID……(if expired, it does not qualify)…..however, she forgot to check and lo and behold, her passport has expired. It does not qualify as an acceptable form of ID……so….she had to produce a valid and certified birth certificate as her second form of ID. Texas is trying to cut down on the fake ID’s…..she fell victim to having to jump through a hoop but she was able to renew her license. This is what it is going to take…it does not disenfranchise anyone but it is a good lesson to have your “ducks in a row” before renewing a license.

          • How bout just get to the point? Is it the Texas vote collection boxes? Abortion? Why is there always an analogy or hypothetical? To show bias? Fine. Everyone has it. So what is the point of your questions?

            D13: “You [Mathius] know how to lay a minefield in conjunction with a trap at the same time.”

            Sometimes I like to ask questions that are a couple steps ahead of where I want to have the conversation… it’s not to “show” bias so much as circumvent it. If I can set you up to stand on the principle, for example, in the above, that the obvious answer “no, it isn’t right if I have to pay extra to exercise my rights than you do as a way of the state pressuring me not to exercise them,” then we can take a step back and consider a tangential topic without that as sticking point.

            I find that when I don’t do this, I run into problems of mental gymnastics where it’s like nailing jello to the wall and I can’t get people to stipulate to even the simplest, most self-evident truths.

            OF COURSE, the state shouldn’t be in the business of preventing you from exercising your rights based on the state’s desire to stop you from exercising it. And, in particular, it shouldn’t be in the business of using cost as a way to deter [undesirable] people from exercising their rights while showing preferential (lack of) cost to allow [desireable] people to exercise their rights more freely. I mean, just, DUH.

            This isn’t about abortion – but if it were, and I tried to argue that “unequal cost to exercise rights” is wrong, you’re unlikely to accept that on the face of it. You might argue that it’s just tough shit and life isn’t fair. But if I can get you to see and agree – away from the loaded topic – that “unequal cost to exercise rights” is wrong, then when we do have the conversation and I lay out my case, I don’t need to fight you on that point.

            If I frame the question (where you’re the victim and your natural biases work in my favor) as “the state taxing you higher to dissuade you from buying a gun because you support Trump, but not doing so for me”… the self-evident truth of this point should pop right out at you: of course it’s wrong.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Your hypothetical was flawed, even given your purpose. Which I thought was obvious, by the way.

              It was flawed because you are comparing your idea of convenience or your cost to a Govt. imposed tax with an explicit purpose of harming a targeted segment of society.,

              Of course, you ignore our tax laws which do exactly that and which thus impose on our right to “equal Justice under the law” and our “right to property”.

              • Your hypothetical was flawed, even given your purpose.

                Oh?

                Which I thought was obvious, by the way.

                Of course, it was – I wasn’t being exactly subtle.

                The goal isn’t to “trick” anyone – it’s just to remove the bias so we can access a point without standing in entrenched biases.

                It was flawed because you are comparing your idea of convenience or your cost to a Govt. imposed tax with an explicit purpose of harming a targeted segment of society.,

                I am. But that’s a slightly tangential topic – which is why I segregated this point.

                I want to agree – and have an agreement – HERE that the government shouldn’t be leveraging uneven taxes to discourage [undesireable] demographics from exercising their rights.

                In other words, the government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who should and shouldn’t exercise their rights and then making it easier or harder to do so based on their desired outcomes.

                I mean – that seems like a pretty non-contentious position to me… you?

                Of course, you ignore our tax laws which do exactly that and which thus impose on our right to “equal Justice under the law” and our “right to property”.

                I do? How so?

            • Sir Mathius….we shall assume that population has no impact…that it does not matter about red or blue team and strictly rely on distance and the cost, yes?

              • For comparisons, let us look at Brewster County Texas. It votes for the Red team usually….it is over 6,000 square miles…..One ballot box. As a matter of record, look at most west Texas counties and their size……all are larger than the Houston area and vote for the Red Team.

                So, why are you trying to pick on Houston when the impact in Texas is greater for the Red Team than the Blue Team and you have three weeks to early vote?

            • Well, what is your point? If your talking about Ballot drop boxes, this is the first year I have heard of them. Regardless, exercising one’s Rights may indeed cost money. Guns and ammo are not usually free (unless gifted). Prices may vary from relatively cheap to super expensive. The same can be said about voting. It’s one’s personal responsibility to either get to the polls or apply for an absentee ballot and send it in. There is no other legal requirement for government to make it easier for people.

              Now, your turn 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Harris County, Texas = 1,777 sq. miles.

          Kootenai County, Idaho = 1,316 sq. miles.

          Why is a single box in Harris County a problem but not in Kootenai County? Size difference is small. Especially given the long routes needed to get from the outer parts of Kootenai County to the Court house where the collection box is located. A few Mountains and a giant Lake prevent straight line travel, which does exist in Houston.

          I am guessing Houston probably has a robust public transit system serving most of the county. Obviously we do not.

          • How are these people being disenfranchised when all they have to do is toss the ballot in the mail? For remote ballot collection boxes, what kind to security is required and how much does it cost? Can not the voter drop the ballot at any polling station on election day? If historically, counties had only one drop box, why must that be changed this year? This is not the first pandemic, catastrophe or war that has occurred during an election.

          • (A) Sounds like both are a problem.

            (B) What’s the population of Kootenai County? You know what, nevermind, I have Google. It’s 165k. Harris is 4.7mm. That’s about 28.5x. Geographical size is only one factor. Gotta consider both.

            (C) What Idaho does doesn’t really have standing for consideration vs what Texas does. My objection is that the one-box-per-county rule biases the vote in Texas in favor of smaller counties. It’s not that it’s an “absolute” wrong in the sense of “it’s too hard to vote” but rather that “it’s hard-ER to vote here than in other counties in Texas” which means that other counties will, ceterus paribus, be counted higher and, therefore, skew the results.

            • Geographical size is only one factor. Gotta consider both. Wait…I thought your litmus test was cost.

              • Cost from a personal perspective.

                Fairness from the state.

                ———-

                All I’m asserting is that it should be roughly comparable to vote regardless of where you live within a state. If you have three easy mechanisms, they should have three easy mechanisms. You shouldn’t have three easy and they two easy but one hard. (do you agree?)

                If you make it harder for a group to vote – even if you are only cutting off one avenue – you are making it harder for that group to vote. And, all things being equal, that group will vote less. (do you agree?)

                If you deliberately cut off certain avenues for certain people who are more likely to vote for Blue Team, then you are – all things being equal – going to cause more blue voters to not vote. (do you agree?)

                If you do NOT do the same for certain people who are more likely to vote for Red Team, then you are – all things being equal – NOT gong to suppress Red Team’s votes. (do you agree?)

                THEREFORE, by suppressing one group and not the other (note the unequalness), you are skewing the vote. In a close election, this could result in a change of who wins. This is the state choosing the voters rather than the voters choosing the state. And this is wrong.

              • There is a reason voting day is Tuesday. People traveled from every corner on Monday to make it to the poll on Tuesday. If we got back to basics, it wouldn’t be a problem.

                (That’s about the only thing I remember from high school government class)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      This weekend I posted two Court rulings involving a determination that Mr. Trump’s campaign and the Gov. of Texas “did not show proof of fraud” in making a decision designed to reduce fraud.

      Yet the Court is accepting the argument that reducing boxes will somehow disenfranchise one group of voters, based on the arguments of “partisans”. And there is not “proof” that such disenfranchisement has happened.

      Is this not a DOUBLE STANDARD?

      • Is this not a DOUBLE STANDARD?

        Maybe.

        I look at it as “in the real world, we have to risk error.” The risk is (A) too many ballot boxes and the increased risk of fraud vs (B) too few ballow boxes and the risk that people will be disenfranchised.

        I know that in a perfect world, you wouldn’t have to choose, but I think you’ll agree those are effectively the only options.

        So… one side says we should err one way, the other says we should err the other.

        What’s a court to do?

        Well, at the end of the day, I suppose the real question is “what is this court’s duty?”

        If the court’s duty is (and I have no idea if this is right) “to ensure a secure and accurate-as-possible election,” then both sides should be given weight. If the court’s duty is “ensure the right of the people to exercise their rights” (as I suspect it is) – then what Texas is doing is saying “yes, that’s your job, but we have a compelling reason to override that.”

        That’s a fairly common position in law – “we understand the obligation of the court is to enforce this employment contract, but since this clause is unconscionable, we ask the court to override it.” For example. The courts’ duty isn’t completely myopic (at least not always) – a compelling reason can often find a carve-out for consideration against a court’s natural inclination.

        And, so, to prove that compelling cause to override, they should have to supply evidence of a compelling nature – which they have evidently failed to do. Because, you know, no evidence.

        Conversely, as (again, I am guessing) the court’s primary duty is to protect the right of people to vote, a much weaker case can be made in its favor since the court inclined to err in that direction regardless.

        I don’t know if this makes sense – I’m doing a lot of speculating here… but it has the ring of truth to me.

        And, to be clear, I’m not asserting anything here as pragmatically “right” or “wrong” – but that the law is a framework of rules. The path a court has to follow (and the reason I disagree with Roe, for example) is to follow the law, not find the societally or morally “right” outcome.

        ———-

        Just to put this in other terms: You are the referee at your daughter’s volleyball game. Your job is to ensure that the players play the game within the rules. One side comes to you and says “the other side is going to cheat – you need to ban their star player,” but offers no compelling evidence. The other says “you have to let her play since we’ll definitely lose without her.”

        Well, you’re going to side with inclusion, right?

        Neither side has shown you any evidence, really. The team that wants to keep her has not shown you even evidence or compelling reasons. The latter hasn’t proven their case, just made an unsupported / unsupportable assertion.

        But it doesn’t really matter that they haven’t proven their case. Your job is to naturally protect the right of players to play and teams to include the players they want. Because that’s the rule you’re supposed to enforce. Sure, you’re supposed to stop cheating, but you need to know there’s cheating with some degree of certainty before you’re going to just accept it as a cause for banning players.

        But then, if the teams show up and the other side points at the star player who is a 7’2 grown man with a full beard, and they say, “here HERE is compelling evidence that the other team is cheating,” now you have a reason to breach your other obligations. Now you can look at your duty to “let the players play” and say “yea… but no.”

        Does that make sense?

        • It seems to me that no one is being disenfranchised. They have as far as I know two options, vote by mail or vote in person. If vote by mail they have 3 options, mail in the ballot, deliver it to a polling station on election day or take it to a drop box. The latter is a convenience offered by the county. If you are too lazy to do any of these, then TS.

          • T-Ray,

            I hear what you’re saying.

            Just answer me this:

            ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, amongst two otherwise identical counties, who will cast more votes: County A which has three convenient methods of voting, or County B which has two convenient methods of voting and one inconvenient method.

            EVERYTHING ELSE about these two counties is identical down to the subatomic level. Who casts more votes: A or B?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I thought I was talking with Mathius and not Justice Roberts!

          bwahahahaha

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Saw some early comments by Dems on the SCOTUS hearing. OMG, the new lady Justice might overturn the ACA and cause people to lose coverage.

    1. Is this not an admission on their part that they know it was in fact un-constitutional? That Roberts twisted himself in knots to justify a political decision which wouldn’t stand the test of a more “conservative” approach to interpretation?

    2. Are not Justices supposed to rule on the law and not the outcomes of the BAD LAW if it is repealed? Aren’t the Dems admitting they want Judges to seek political outcomes over legal rulings?

    • Saw some early comments by Dems on the SCOTUS hearing. OMG, the new lady Justice might overturn the ACA and cause people to lose coverage.

      Been seeing this, too.

      Step 1: kill ACA
      Step 2: kill protections for pre-existing conditions
      Step 3: Covid is a pre-existing condition
      Step 4: We’re all screwed

      Is this not an admission on their part that they know it was in fact un-constitutional?

      Not necessarily.

      There is a fundamental disagreement between the sides as to whether this is Constituional – the assumption that someone who disagrees with you will… you know, disagree with you.. is a good assumption.

      Conversely, you might have a concern that [insert Biden nominee] might ban firearm ownership – but your concern that he may rule that way would not imply that you “know in fact that firearm ownership is Unconstitutional.”

      I don’t think this follows.

      That Roberts twisted himself in knots to justify a political decision which wouldn’t stand the test of a more “conservative” approach to interpretation?

      Without a doubt.

      The contortions necessary to turn a tax into not-a-tax are baffling.

      (to clarify: I agree with your position, but I don’t stipulate that Blue Team’s opposition is an admission of their being wrong.)

      Are not Justices supposed to rule on the law and not the outcomes of the BAD LAW if it is repealed?

      Your phrasing is throwing me off…

      Justices are supposed to rule on the law, consequences be damned.

      Aren’t the Dems admitting they want Judges to seek political outcomes over legal rulings?

      No. Dems have a… different view of the Constitution than you or I.

      They view it far more… flexibly.

      We – you and I – are textualists. It says a thing and that this is the law. The Democrats view it more as tea leaves to be read.

      They aren’t admitting they want judges to ignore the law.. they want judges who agree with them that the law is what’s in his heart.

      Does the Constitution allow gay marriage? Well, you know… it kinda points at equality and gay marriage would be necessary to be equal so.. you know… sure, why not!

      How about abortion? Well, you know… something something privacy… something something freedom of religion… so… you know… sure, why not!

      By the way, I’m beating up Democrats here, but there are plenty of Republicans (as distinct from (big C) “Conservatives”) who want judicial activism, too.. just from their side.

      • Been seeing this as well. So let’s talk about it. Health insurance was around long before the ACA and was cheaper, despite the promises made.
        Pre-existing conditions ARE protected in many States by State law. Ohio being one.
        A virus is not a condition, or the Flu would also be a pre-existing condition.
        Nobody is screwed, but might actually get coverage thats affordable and covers what it needs to, not what some idiots in DC think it should cover.
        The ACA is probably unconstitutional anyway, so tough.
        Did I mention that Biden thinks people are idiots? Yep, I think so.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        After reading another of your explanations I have concluded that YES, they are admitting that 1. It is unconstitutional and 2) That Roberts decision won’t stand serious review. Oh, and that 3) They really want to know outcomes, not the law.

  35. M O D E R A T I O N ….please.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Your concern over boxes is BS my man. There is only an issue if the decision to keep it at one is “deliberately” aimed at suppressing votes. There is no “hardER” involved based on demographics. In fact, who is having it harder? Those farthest from the box, in terms of time/cost, right??

    And who is most likely to live close to “The Box” if it is located at the clerks office, which is usually the county court house? Yep, the city folks living near the heart of town.

    So lets take another rural example. Missoula County, MT = 2,618 mi².

    One box located at the court house. Where is that? In downtown Missoula, only blocks from the University. And the location where the Clerk has allowed homeless and others to claim residency in order to allow them to vote. Now who is being imposed upon by this practice? The more likely D voters in the City or the more likely R voters in the rural parts of the County?

    It is also time to recognize that the Judge who overturned the Gov. of Texas did not use your argument. His big point was the Gov. waited so long to CHANGE from the existing practice that it would create CONFUSION. So the Judge erred on the side of EXISTING policy over REVISED policy DUE TO TIMING.

    Your whole argument falls mostly on deaf ears here because so many of us have or do live in more rural settings. I had to vote absentee for years or drive 80 miles ONE WAY to the polling station to vote. The onus was on me to get my ballot in time and then mail it in time to make sure it arrived before the cut off date.

    Which does bring up one issue I have with these mail in ballots. It makes little sense to me to place the deadline in the middle of a day, like the time the polls close. Just get the PO to date stamp and use the ELECTION DAY as the deadline. After midnight…..to bad.

    I also think we should stop counting votes on election day/night. Put all the ballots in a locked and guarded safe and start counting the next day. When folks are rested and filled with coffee or Red Bull. I think this silly need to have immediate results is causing some of the errors in counting. Including the building of electronic systems just to speed up counting, which in turn opened whole new means of cheating, or screwing up.

    • Your concern over boxes is BS my man.

      Agreed, totally.

    • There is only an issue if the decision to keep it at one is “deliberately” aimed at suppressing votes.

      I disagree.

      I would assert that the problem is a problem if the EFFECT is of suppressing votes.

      It is also time to recognize that the Judge who overturned the Gov. of Texas did not use your argument.

      As I said, I haven’t read the ruling… I’m only surmising how the burden of proof might not be a double-standard.

      His big point was the Gov. waited so long to CHANGE from the existing practice that it would create CONFUSION. So the Judge erred on the side of EXISTING policy over REVISED policy DUE TO TIMING.

      Sounds like he decided the outcome and worked backward into the argument to support it.

      You know how I feel about that kind of thing.

      Which does bring up one issue I have with these mail in ballots. It makes little sense to me to place the deadline in the middle of a day, like the time the polls close. Just get the PO to date stamp and use the ELECTION DAY as the deadline. After midnight…..to bad.

      I’m on onboard with this.

      Part of the reason these boxes are such an issue is because confidence in the post office is so shaken. It’s three weeks to the election and I’ll be mailing my vote tomorrow and I’m still concerned it won’t be counted.

      Now, if I could track my ballot… if I could know that, having dropped it off in time, it will be counted.. I don’t think it would be such an issue.

      Still an issue. Just not as big of one.

      I also think we should stop counting votes on election day/night. Put all the ballots in a locked and guarded safe and start counting the next day. When folks are rested and filled with coffee or Red Bull. I think this silly need to have immediate results is causing some of the errors in counting. Including the building of electronic systems just to speed up counting, which in turn opened whole new means of cheating, or screwing up.

      Sounds good to me…. but, you know… I reallllly wanna know!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        You make stuff up, like the boxes are important because confidence is shaken. Shaken to whom??? This is just hypothetical pontificating on your part. The irony is who is creating the uncertainty? The R’s claim it could result in fraud. The D’s claim that Mr. Trump is deliberately boogering up the Post Office for the purpose of suppressing the vote.

        I am starting to think you have one of those brain parasites the good professor was discussing above.

        Disenfranchising someone means they don’t get to vote for some arbitrary reason imposed by someone else. Not that they were do darn lazy to get their vote to the right place.

        The boxes are a singular point of collection for those who waited to long. PERIOD. It is actually an ADDED convenience as I know of no place they existed before this years attempt to avoid in person voting.

        My “feelings” about the POST OFFICE are irrelevant. Just as your “FEELINGS” about how some made up person might react to some hypothetical event.

        VOTING includes that value called RESPONSIBILITY.

  37. So, I heard that Biden says that the current ongoing SCOTUS confirmation hearing and upcoming vote by the Senate is Unconstitutional. HMM! 47 years in government service and STILL don’t know whats in the Constitution…..or…..he thinks his supporters are idiots.

    • I’d like to see his remarks, but no, it’s not Unconstitutional unless he’s talking about some specific technical nuance I’m unaware of.

      Trump is the President for four years. He gets to appoint.

      Senators get to confirm.

      Biden gets to shut up.

  38. Mathius….down here…

    Mathius asks: All I’m asserting is that it should be roughly comparable to vote regardless of where you live within a state. If you have three easy mechanisms, they should have three easy mechanisms. You shouldn’t have three easy and they two easy but one hard. (do you agree?) Yes, the Colonel agrees.

    Mathius asks: If you make it harder for a group to vote – even if you are only cutting off one avenue – you are making it harder for that group to vote. And, all things being equal, that group will vote less. (do you agree?) The Colonel does NOT agree. And before you ask me to qualify my statement, I will do so. If other avenues were open to offset the closing of one, then I do not agree.

    Mathius tries to lay the trap but the Colonel DOES have a mine sweeper: If you do NOT do the same for certain people who are more likely to vote for Red Team, then you are – all things being equal – NOT gong to suppress Red Team’s votes. (do you agree?) To interpret….if you make it easier for one team to vote and harder for the other team to vote, would that be acceptable. No, it would not be acceptable.

    Mathius Notes: THEREFORE, by suppressing one group and not the other (note the unequalness), you are skewing the vote. In a close election, this could result in a change of who wins. This is the state choosing the voters rather than the voters choosing the state. And this is wrong. The Colonel notes that this is a conclusion NOT drawn from actual facts but is a hypothetical situation. And also notes, that, “suddenly found” ballot boxes in Houston, days after an election but before certification, did sway a result.
    ———————————————–

    The Colonel also notes that Mathius always tries to use “statistics” and “percentages” to make his point.

    I am not going to take the time to go back and look…but it seems that I remember a conversation along the lines of voter fraud and that the percentages were very low….somewhere in the 1 to 2% range…..and, consequently do not rise to draconian methods of prevention.

    Then the Colonel wonders about using “percentages” and “statistics” in the situation of Covid. Let us see here……………..according to the CDC, the percentages of people dying from covid in the US….is .000086 percent of the population. And the percent of people in the US that have actually have Covid…..is 2 percent of the population. Is it fair to close down an entire country because of a mere 2 percent of the population?

    I know..you will say it is not apples to apples…..but percentages and stats do not lie….verdad?

  39. Texas counties are currently blocked from setting up multiple mail-in ballot drop-off locations ahead of the November election after a federal appeals court on Saturday issued a temporary order.

    The Saturday decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came shortly after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an emergency appeal of an order issued late Friday by a federal judge that blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to authorize only one ballot box per county in the state.

    • And this…….

      State and local election officials in California are investigating after multiple unofficial mail-in voting drop-off boxes have been reported in several counties in the weeks leading up to Election Day, Fox News confirmed Monday.

      California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement that his office is “coordinating with local officials to address the multiple reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes.”

      “Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes—especially those misrepresented as official drop boxes—is not just misleading to voters, it’s a violation of state law,” Padilla said. “This is also an important reminder. Voters are in control of how to return their ballot, and they have multiple safe and secure options for doing so. Ballots can be returned by mail, to any in-person voting location, or to an official secure drop box. Never hand your ballot over to someone you don’t trust.”

  40. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Re, the new round of the Portland SSR’s statue toppling….

    Since the Theodore Roosevelt character is central to the plots of all “Night at the Museum” movies . I DEMAND all copies be burned! And Lincoln is in one too! Let’s all go and deface the tomb of Robin Williams and his white privlige who had the cultural insensitivity to play Theodore Roosevelt. Williams HUNG himself, with a NOOSE! Talk about cultural appropriation! What does THAT tell you?

    BLM RULES!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Nothing, nothing I tell you is more effective at stopping modern day police brutality issues than tipping over statues of people dead for a hundred years or more.

      Good for these young patriots of socialism. Good job, well done. You have convinced us all of how truthful your chanting really is.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Tonight one of those idiots was interviewed, Why Lincoln, Why TR was asked? Answer, to raise awareness on climate change.

        While I am sure Abe was somewhat pre-occupied, Stupid was probably NOT taught about TR being the first conservationist president nor the national parks. Eventually, they will win, there is no doubt about it. Someday we will fall into a major depression and some white or perhaps person of color knight will come along and the US of A will be toast never to return.

  41. The Lakers won the NBA title so riots and looting ensued in LA. The police arrested 80 people. So the police arrest looters during a sports riot but ignore looting, arson, etc. during a BLM/Antifa riot?

    • LOS ANGELES, CA—Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, having opposed large religious gatherings in his city for the past 7 months, has suddenly reversed course, allowing a large worship service to take place in the streets of the city last night.

      Despite the ban on religious gatherings, the worshipers came together to honor their god, LeBron James, in a spontaneous outpouring of love and praise. Worshipers in this religion, rather than singing songs or saying prayers, topple cars and throw things at the police.

      “We will make an exception for this group of devout worshipers,” said Garcetti. “When I hear their hymns of praise — shouting things like ‘Burn it all down’ and ‘LAKERS WOOOOOOOO’, I am reminded of the great religious history of this city, and I am moved.”

      The worshipers were not socially distancing or wearing masks for the most part but strangely did not draw the ire of media outlets, who usually comment on such things. “No, this is actually beautiful,” said a teary-eyed Jim Acosta. “I love to see worshipers worshiping their gods, as long as they are worshiping the correct gods.”

    • Yes…some more of that selective enforcement.

  42. Huge long lines at the early voting booths……Don’t know what it means……

    Texas opens it bars today…..No more shutting down a state economy.

    • A federal appeals court has reinstated Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s order limiting the use of absentee ballot drop boxes to one location per county, regardless of population.

      Just before midnight Monday Texas time, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a district judge’s preliminary injunction against Abbott’s October 1 directive.

      Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Duncan said the lower court erred by failing to view the governor’s order as part of a broader initiative aimed at making it easier for Texans to vote amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

  43. Hell’s Bell’s……………………how about Barrett for President? She handles herself well.

  44. Warren described Disney’s decision to pay dividends and buy back stock before the pandemic as “short-sighted,” because it reduced the capital the company could have used to weather the downturn.

    Can you say…..DUH! Of course, you are going to take care of shareholders and investors…..it is what keeps Mathius in business. (Note: D13 sold all of Disney last month).

  45. Question for SUFA……this is NOT hypothetical, it is real. So, you own apartments or rent houses. You have graciously allowed tenants to live rent free in your apartments and homes for 6 months. Your loans have been graciously extended by the banks as well. Owners and shareholders of the lenders have understood the crises but how far is too far. At some point time and money runs out. So, banks are saying, we need the loan payments and YOU, the homeowner or apartment owner, have to go to the tenants and say…your grace period is over. I need your rent money or I will have to evict. There is no money available for you to pay your mortgage to the bank……but you have a line of waiting renters who can pay.

    WHAT DO YOU DO?

    • The real world sucks sometimes.

      Demand payment from the renters. If you can afford to be gracious and accept a partial payment (either forgiving or deferring the balance) and you choose to be a nice person, then great. If you can’t afford this, then you demand payment in full.

      If they pay, great. If they can’t pay, well, sorry, life sucks sometimes. Kick them out, keep their security deposit, sell the debt to the collectors for 70c on the dollar, pay your banker, and lease to someone with a steady income.

      I fail to see why the renter should get to stay for free in perpetuity to the detriment of the landlord who risks defaulting on his own debts as a result. That just seems like insanity to me.

      If you owe money, you owe money. It’s that simple. If you are called on your debt (within the bounds of your contract) then you have to pay or you are in default. If you are in default, then you suffer the consequences of default. This isn’t rocket science.

      • This isn’t rocket science. No….sir…..no, it is not.

        • There was a line in a book I read years and years and years ago about the Boston Police Strike.

          The new commissioner was called out by the police to honor an agreement on wages or OT or some such (the details didn’t stick, obviously). And he tried to push back saying they didn’t have the money. And the cop tells him “simply put, we have a deal.”

          And the commissioner just sighs and says something along the lines of “yes, sir, we do. And I will honor it. It’s not easy. But it is simple..”

          I always loved that line.

          If you have an agreement – your rental property for their money – and they don’t meet their end of the contract, well… it’s not easy. But it is simple.

          • Fortunately, I only dabble in the real estate rentals. I have two rental sites…I simply do them triple net and they pay on time. I charge them a reasonable rate but being triple net, they have the expenses. Since my rental properties are for tax only and they are paid off, I charge them only the amount to keep the IRS off my ass and break even in cash flow. I want NO PROFIT. I want the depreciation. My lease agreement stipulates that they are responsible for all repairs in the same format they rented. For example, if they have a BOSCH dishwasher and it goes out, they have to replace it the same….and since it becomes an attachment to the property, I get the depreciation. In the long run, it works out great. 2400 square feet of living space only costs then $800 bucks per month but they pay all expenses. The IRS code allows me to write off the comparable amount in the area. 2400 sq feet goes for 1800 bucks per month….so, I write off 1800 and take in 800. So, on paper, I lose $1,000 per month plus taxes and depreciation and since it is a Sub S corp, it offsets personal income. Wanna know how the big boys like Trump make money…….this is how. ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL.

            I wonder in New York if $800 bucks would even get you a spot on a park bench.

            • I wonder in New York if $800 bucks would even get you a spot on a park bench.

              I always wonder why I can’t stack a bunch of shipping containers up and call it an apartment complex.

              At 320 sqft, you could charge $800/mo to hipsters.

              What’s a shipping container cost? 2k? 3k landed? Maybe a bit more in better condition?

              So I’d need… 7.5 units to get to 2400 sqft… That’s ~20k outlay, netting 6k in rent, and 1.8k in depreciation. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

              • Ah…ahhhh……do not forget to use accelerated depreciation. A wonderful “democrat” invention. Great example……since I do not have my plane any longer I do not mind using it as an example. My 2016 Baron 58 cost 1.3 million. So, my company buys this airplane and we paid cash and no financing. Utilizing accelerated depreciation, we were able to write off or deduct the 1.3 million over………are you ready for this……… over 24 months. Straight off the bottom line. In addition, all maintenance was a cost on a yearly basis (Hangar rental, yearly inspections, fuel, oil, etc.). Any parts that added or replaced were an immediate cost and not capitalized since there was no longer a depreciation schedule. Then, after 4 years of flying it, I sold it off for 850,000…..which was not an appreciated figure, therefore, there was no capital gain on the sale.

                What a great invention…..Using an accelerated depreciation method has financial reporting implications. Because depreciation is accelerated, expenses are higher in earlier periods compared to later periods. Companies may utilize this strategy for taxation purposes, as an accelerated depreciation method will result in a deferment of tax liabilities since income is lower in earlier periods.

                Use up your depreciation….then dump it and buy a new one.

  46. Seattle’s once-booming economy is struggling because of the coronavirus pandemic. This problem is not unique. But unlike other cities, Seattle’s tax-addicted progressive leaders are recklessly increasing taxes at a time when businesses and individuals can least afford them.Far-left Democrats are in total control of the City Council and mayor’s office.When Amazon announced the vast majority of its 60,000 Seattle-based employees would work remotely, the economic pain was immediate. Over 100 businesses in Downtown Seattle have already closed permanently, with restaurants hit especially hard without a steady stream of Amazon employees coming in.

    The Council previously targeted Amazon with a head tax in 2018. At the time, Amazon successfully pushed back and threatened to end expansion in the city. This time, Amazon reacted swiftly. It announced it would shift 10,000 jobs to nearby Bellevue, Wash. (on top of 15,000 they previously promised). They also declined to renew a 180,000 square foot office lease in the heart of Seattle.But Seattle city leaders weren’t done with legislation. Over objections from rideshare companies, Mayor Jenny Durkan and the Council established a $16.39 minimum wage standard for Uber and Lyft drivers. This was on top of two previous tax hikes of $0.75 per ride. In a statement, a spokesperson for Lyft predicted the “deeply flawed” legislation will push them out of Seattle.The local, 130-year-old Bartell Drugs announced a sale to out-of-state Rite-Aid. CEO Kathi Lentzsch complained of business taxes rising plus COVID, making operations financially untenable.

    The Washington state legislature is making matters worse. Democrats passed a new statewide real estate excise tax. It replaced a flat rate with a tiered structure that makes buying and selling large properties even more financially onerous.

    Plus, in 2021, businesses may be hit with a 700% increase in unemployment tax rates to fill a depleted unemployment fund. In 2022, there’s a 0.58% wage tax to fund a new financial assistance program. More tax announcements are expected in the next legislative session.

    If the work-from-home model is truly more efficient, there’s also fewer reasons for businesses to buy large properties. This will further cool the commercial real estate industry. And when people move out of the city, there will be a lot of empty, newly-built apartments. But that’s not all.Many restaurants, coffee shops, and boutique retailers owe their very existence to big employers providing a customer base. If they don’t return, these businesses struggle and eventually close. That also hits their local suppliers.What’s worse, the city has shown no willingness to curb spending. That means, the middle class will eventually pay higher taxes to keep up with city spending. That, in turn, could push them out of Seattle for a more tax-friendly city.

    And, just like that, the once-booming Seattle, desperate to be seen as world-class, becomes Detroit.

    Socialist City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, “If people and business’ do not wish to support our objective in Seattle, we should pass legislation that places liens on all property, personal and private, and confiscate the wealth that created this problem.”
    ============================
    There ya have it…the progressive agenda unmasked.

  47. Question for SUFA…………Is Facebook and Twitter guilty of censorship in blocking selective stories? They are each a private company. Does the right of free speech apply to them as well as the right to censor to private individuals.

%d bloggers like this: