Who wins trump or Biden?

[Locke]

 

How many cases have been brought to light?

There are many states where there are more registered voters than there are voters. I think it was Michigan has 187% of its voting population registered to vote.

Can't find the source right now though. Here we go

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/judicial-watch-study/

[Arpeggio]

 

I haven't even heard of Microsoft's "NewsGuard"

NewsGuard is often in small text at bottom of articles. Often you wouldn't know but there are lots of these type of things.

 

I haven't taken any information from fact checkers. I wasn't making any claim about the content of his claims. I just pointed out that he was able to get through the debates without appearing senile. Trump seemingly thought the first debate when so badly that he refused to take part in the second one!

Trump wanted more than 3 debates. Joe would not come out of his basement for more than 3. Trump refused the 2nd debate because the Democrats wanted it to be virtual. There was at least another debate after than anyway.

 

By the way, most media is large corporate backed. You've quoted Breitbart, who are funded by the Mercers! Do you follow anyone who is funded by large corporations or oligarchs?

Thanks for telling me and worth looking into. A computer scientist who worked for IBM (but not until 1972, they are Jewish apparently). Mercer was the main financial backer of the Jackson Hole Summit, a conference that took place in Wyoming in August 2015 to advocate for the gold standard. The gold standard had been dropped in the 1970s

 

 

This has nothing to do with whether he came across as senile in the 90 minute debates. 

Maybe the Biden campaign asked for breaks to play into Trump's claims about Biden being unable to cope for long. It clearly doesn't seem to have worked. Biden didn't have any major stutters like he did during previous speeches.

I agree, from what I saw, apart from checking his watch like Bush Senior 1992, Biden came across as not as senile in the debates. Shame he didn't want to do drug tests or ear piece check. Quite a contrast to saying he is a grandmother or waving to an empty space while de-planing.

De-planing is a new word for me from the US, meaning to get off a plane. I probably shouldn't use it.

[Chunketh]

Did we need another word for disembarking? 

[shlomo]

 

Whoever wins will have no impact on my toilet roll supply, at least. 

[Arpeggio]

 

There are many states where there are more registered voters than there are voters. I think it was Michigan has 187% of its voting population registered to vote.

Can't find the source right now though. Here we go

https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/judicial-watch-study/

Unfortunately it looks like Democrats are breaking the law in PA already. I'm pretty sure that campaigning at polling stations is illegal....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/steal-philly-man-caught-handing-democrat-literature-voters-line-vote/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/caught-video-philadelphia-poll-watcher-prevented-entering-polling-place-video/

[Arpeggio]

 

Did we need another word for disembarking? 

That's getting off a tree though. I wonder if the word mansplaining is an Americanization too?

I need to de-internet now.

[Chunketh]

 

Unfortunately it looks like Democrats are breaking the law in PA already. I'm pretty sure that campaigning at polling stations is illegal....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/steal-philly-man-caught-handing-democrat-literature-voters-line-vote/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/caught-video-philadelphia-poll-watcher-prevented-entering-polling-place-video/

Fake ballot collection points? Quite how on earth that is legal is beyond me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/california-fake-ballot-boxes-republican-gop-2020-election-b1041483.html

[Chunketh]

 

That's getting off a tree though. I wonder if the word mansplaining is an Americanization too?

I need to de-internet now.

Try turning off your router, it looks like this according to our american cousins.

 

[byron78]

58 minutes ago, Locke said:

There are many states where there are more registered voters than there are voters. I think it was Michigan has 187% of its voting population registered to vote.

Can't find the source right now though. Here we go

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/judicial-watch-study/

Well that website seems legit, and not horrible unbalanced and bias...

(It's wrong, on many many levels. Michigan has a voting are population of just under 8M in 2016. About 5M turned out. This is taking the increase in postal ballots (almost like there's a pandemic eh?), and then... well... either lying or being very very stupid. Probably both. Seriously.... why do people bother with these nonsense sites?)

[wighty]

 

I think Trump is pretty good value but I'm not sure I'd be as delighted as I should with him winning. Not too keen on his financial policies (high interest rates are basically voting for communism in his mind) but then in that way he doesn't annoy me as much as he probably should as he does wind up the left something chronic so I love him for that. I'd be willing to put up with 4 more years of low interest rates just to see the Twitters tomorrow morning, and those meme-worthy photos of woke-anguish.

How much of a cuck is Biden towards BLM BTW? Would him getting in effectively mean the whole of the US turns into Portland? That would be quite an interesting experiment. Kind of what Brexit could have turned into if Project Fear had been accurate.

Lived in Portland OR for two years. Great place.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Odds just moved in favour of a Biden win. Not hugely, but there has been some significant information.

[Riedquat]

 

Odds just moved in favour of a Biden win. Not hugely, but there has been some significant information.

Most of the ones I'd seen were in favour of a Biden win anyway (well not odds so much admittedly, but most discussion on the subject).

[AThirdWay]

 

Well that website seems legit, and not horrible unbalanced and bias...

(It's wrong, on many many levels. Michigan has a voting are population of just under 8M in 2016. About 5M turned out. This is taking the increase in postal ballots (almost like there's a pandemic eh?), and then... well... either lying or being very very stupid. Probably both. Seriously.... why do people bother with these nonsense sites?)

You're wasting your time, he's off the scale

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

 

Most of the ones I'd seen were in favour of a Biden win anyway (well not odds so much admittedly, but most discussion on the subject).

Yes, they have been for a long time. But this is a movement towards Biden in the last few minutes or so. Not huge but a definite shift. Something has happened. Maybe they got some early exit poll info.

[MARTINX9]

 

Odds just moved in favour of a Biden win. Not hugely, but there has been some significant information.

Probably exit poll leaks - but its still only noon on the east coast.

Of course back in 2016 everyone was 100% confident Clinton had won based on the exit polls which were even better for her than the pre election polls. And then the actual results came in.

Of course if it is close we may well not have a result for days - PA won't be counting most/many of its mail in ballots until tomorrow.

Until the first polls close at around midnight its all speculation.

[thecrashingisles]

 

I will just address this as a skim of your post suggests this is the crux.

(1) States rely on the compliance of the populace. If everyone refused to pay taxes, the State would collapse immediately, because the amount of resources required to forcefully extract resources form someone far exceeds the resources you can obtain that way.

For examples, slave owners had to spend around 90% of a slave's output on maintaining that slave in food, shelter, clothing and medicine. 

The USSR did not last too long.

British rule in India came to an end when people refused to work.

(2) People are vastly more productive when they are free to choose their occupation. Again just look at what the move from Feudalism to more market centered societies did for Europe. Look at the abysmal productivity of the USSR. The smaller the government, the more productive output you get per person. This allows smaller groups to outcompete larger groups.

(3) They are also far more creative in coming up with new and more efficient solutions.

(4) Free of the bizarre bonds of international law, an ancap society wold be wildly dangerous to the leadership of statist societies. They would have no qualms assassinating the heads of foreign nations which showed aggression, and it would probably work, given (2) and (3)

(5) Even should a ground invasion be launched, with their grater productivity, ancap societies might just pay off the invading soldiers, who are likely to be conscripts.

(6) Lastly, there is little incentive for a state to try and capture an anarchist population, because of (1); being anarchists, they will yield very little resource compared to what it takes to extract it.

 

I'm not saying voluntary societies would definitely survive or be immune to assault, more that they are like the mean little ******* in prison who generally leave alone and get left alone. They may look small, but when attacked, they probably have a shiv or two hidden away and if you do survive the fight, you will be spending time in the medical ward.

 

In any case, history shows that we are grinding our way towards more and more freedom. People are not taught just how authoritarian medieval society was, but it was horrendous. They would throw you in jail for coughing at a market, for example.

I think liberty is fairly inevitable, assuming we survive parasitic leftists and control freak Karens.

There is an inherent contradiction in your thinking. If "grinding our way towards more and more freedom" has gone hand in hand with the development of the modern state, why would dismantling the state lead to more freedom and not less?

[Young Turk]

 

I will just address this as a skim of your post suggests this is the crux.

(1) States rely on the compliance of the populace. If everyone refused to pay taxes, the State would collapse immediately, because the amount of resources required to forcefully extract resources form someone far exceeds the resources you can obtain that way.

1) That is still incredibly utopian. If everyone wished the state to be abolished, they could refuse to pay taxes, but consider how many affluent people wish the state to continue so wouldn't consider refusing to pay taxes.

Also, if some people refused to pay taxes, others would have an incentive to continue paying theirs and then buy your repossessed property cheaply from the government. When you were imprisoned or killed, they could take your former job/business/clients too.

I think for the masses to rise up against the government they have to believe they are united by one thing which is greater than their differences. Most examples of this are the people rebelling against colonial rule, or against some form of authoritarianism. In liberal, democratic mixed economies, people are split as to what the sources of their problems are, so it's very hard to see them rising up together to oppose the government. Currently a socialist/communist uprising seems more popular than a libertarian/anarchist one.

I'm not sure why you think it would be immediate. If there were a serious attempt to starve the state of funds by refusing to pay taxes, I think the state would seize property from tax protesters if they were danger of running low on funds. In the USA this could result in guerilla warfare. In other countries it would depend on whether the police forces and armed forces favoured anarchism (seems unlikely that many anarchists would be working in the police or armed forces).

But do states need tax receipts continually in order to fund themselves? I don't know how budgets for police and military work in practice, but I expect they don't need additional money every day, week or perhaps month. They could function for a while if taxes stopped being paid.

Additionally it is easy to stop paying some taxes, but hard to stop paying others. Individuals could decide not to pay CGT, for example. But if you wanted to stop paying income tax, you would have to persuade your employer to stop paying it. Would all employers agree simultaneously to cease PAYE?

Similarly, if you were buying a house and told the solicitor you were opting out of SDLT, maybe he would proceed, but he would probably inform you that technically that would mean the purchase wouldn't be registered, so perhaps ownership would be contested and so the mortgage offer would be withdrawn. Unless banks and solicitors agreed some alternative system, everything would grind to a halt.

2) What would happen to state institutions if the state collapsed immediately? Hans Hoppe's answer was basically syndicalism: the people who work in an institution will become it's owners. I can see how that would work in the case of schools for example - the teachers would own the schools. It wouldn't be straightforward. Overnight the teachers would have to decide what fees to charge, ownership structure etc., but you can see how they might approach it.

What would happen in the case of the armed forces and their weapons? Would weapons be destroyed? If not, who would own/control them? How would they be prevented from falling into the hands of those who would use them to threaten and extort money, or attempt to establish a state?

 

For examples, slave owners had to spend around 90% of a slave's output on maintaining that slave in food, shelter, clothing and medicine. 

Part of the reason slavery came to an end was that people could see the greater productivity of societies without slavery.

There is an no empirical analogue with anarchy. The most productive economies in history are mixed economies. I don't think there are any example of modern, advanced anarchist societies existing in large groups for an extended period of time (perhaps the closest large, modern example was Spain in the late 1930s), or pure free market (the closest were perhaps nineteenth century, though even then the government had many functions). 

People may be persuaded that anarchy is greatly superior to our present systems by theoretical arguments. I think that is more likely if people have a better idea of how they would function. Whilst you rightly point out that anarchy is process, I have been struck by the little engagement anarchists have made about how likely problems would be resolved, instead focusing on how it COULD work, which seem more based on wishful thinking or some kind of enlightened communitarian impulse (which is very similar to Ayn Rand's idea of voluntary taxation).

 

The USSR did not last too long.

British rule in India came to an end when people refused to work.

(2) People are vastly more productive when they are free to choose their occupation. Again just look at what the move from Feudalism to more market centered societies did for Europe. Look at the abysmal productivity of the USSR. The smaller the government, the more productive output you get per person. This allows smaller groups to outcompete larger groups.

The people of the USSR had been oppressed for decades (a high proportion must have had relatives sent to gulags, and most would have been very scared by this) and the example of the much more productive and more free West.

I don't know enough about the leaders of the USSR in its last few years, but I suspect some realised they could continue to do well if communism ended. I think a lot of senior figures ended up becoming rich by either seizing state property or buying it cheaply.

Neither the masses nor the ruling class appear to believe they would do much better under anarchy or even just more libertarian government. Some people may believe the society would be more productive (or better in some other ways, notably less war) but worse in others. I'm not sure there is a clear trend toward or aware from personal liberty, size of government, egalitarianism etc. Public opinion shifts one way, then the other, sometimes in response to events, sometimes in response to changing ideas.

 

 

(2) People are vastly more productive when they are free to choose their occupation. Again just look at what the move from Feudalism to more market centered societies did for Europe. Look at the abysmal productivity of the USSR. The smaller the government, the more productive output you get per person. This allows smaller groups to outcompete larger groups.

Consider the mixed economies of the world. Are there any particular freer economies which are outcompeting them? There has been a notable shift from centrally planned economies to mixed economies, but I don't see a trend for major mixed economies (e.g. USA, Japan, Western European countries) to become more free (smaller government etc.) or to fall behind those who are becoming freer. 

 

 

(3) They are also far more creative in coming up with new and more efficient solutions.

(4) Free of the bizarre bonds of international law, an ancap society wold be wildly dangerous to the leadership of statist societies. They would have no qualms assassinating the heads of foreign nations which showed aggression, and it would probably work, given (2) and (3)

(5) Even should a ground invasion be launched, with their grater productivity, ancap societies might just pay off the invading soldiers, who are likely to be conscripts.

These are interesting speculations. I think the threat of (4) would lead states to take the anarchist threat very seriously before it became established. 

The USA waged wars against Communist countries (most notably the Vietnam War) to make an example of them. Why wouldn't they do the same to nascent anarchist areas/groups?

But even if a large mixed economy were aggressive towards a smaller anarchist country, would it necessarily be a good idea for anarchists to carry out assassinations? Even if a small anarchist country was the most productive in the world, it is unlikely it would remain that way if cut off from trading with mixed economies. So I think the USA and other big countries might be able to continue to exert influence over them.

 

(5) Defence against invaders is a public good. Some people would probably want to free ride, so setting aside the logistics of "how do you offer invading forces money without being shot?" they might not be offered enough. In any case, what if there were bombing raids or drones, and what if they soldiers had propaganda which led them to believe in the superior of their country's system over anarchy?

 

(6) Lastly, there is little incentive for a state to try and capture an anarchist population, because of (1); being anarchists, they will yield very little resource compared to what it takes to extract it.

I'm not sure this leads to the results you envisage. In a mixed economy, productive people are worth a lot to governments, as the government extract a lot of tax revenue. e.g. people who earn £500,000 may pay around £200,000 in taxes. The government has no incentive to enslave these people and have them do much less productive work, even if it could extract a much higher proportion of their output. 

But a neighbouring government, which currently extracts nothing from the anarchist population, would benefit from any net gain (e.g. if it cost £50,000 to kidnap a productive person who produces £500,000 per year under anarchism but would yield a lifetime NPV of £100,000 as a slave, that's a £50,000 gain compared to £0 otherwise. They don't compare to the tax they could earn if they were able to keep them employed as they were under anarchy, as it isn't possible. Maybe the government of the mixed economy could benefit enough from trading with the anarchists so that this wasn't worth it though. Alternatively if the anarchists were able to arrange to pay off invading soldiers, perhaps the government could set up a protection racket - some have argued this is how states began).

I think governments would probably try to stamp out anarchism in the early stages. Even if it is not cost effective to do so, it may be worthwhile to prevent anarchism spreading and threatening its own country.

 

I'm not saying voluntary societies would definitely survive or be immune to assault, more that they are like the mean little ******* in prison who generally leave alone and get left alone. They may look small, but when attacked, they probably have a shiv or two hidden away and if you do survive the fight, you will be spending time in the medical ward.

Interesting analogy, but I think prison guards could beat up or kill any inmate if they were empowered to do so. They aren't in relatively civilised countries like the USA, so there is a hierarchy amongst prisoners. But I doubt if such hierarchies exist much in the prisons of totalitarians prison, where guards are unaccountable. Voluntary societies are to major mixed economies like the Vietcong or Islamist terrorists. They have an incentive to commit any atrocities necessary to prevent the virus (of communism, Islamism or anarchism) spreading.

 

 

In any case, history shows that we are grinding our way towards more and more freedom. People are not taught just how authoritarian medieval society was, but it was horrendous. They would throw you in jail for coughing at a market, for example.

I think liberty is fairly inevitable, assuming we survive parasitic leftists and control freak Karens.

There is definitely a trend toward liberty over several hundred years, but arguably the 19th century was the period of greatest liberty and the 20th century was the century of extremes (communism and fascism were prominent). The surveillance state ushered in by the War on Terror and the success of China developing a form of state capitalism without liberalising politically makes me wonder if we aren't moving in the other direction though.

[Huggy]

 

Lived in Portland OR for two years. Great place.

Recently? I've heard the neighborhood has very recently gotten ungodly. Yee haa, and all that.

[Young Turk]

 

would it be justified to commit evil to prevent a greater evil?

 

 

Can you think of an example? Bear in mind that it will be torn down to the nuts and bolts and you may find a different point of view than you expect.

1) Trolley problem: If you do nothing, five innocent people die. If you divert the trolley, one different innocent person dies.

Is your inaction leading to five innocent deaths evil, or is it only evil in the case where you take a positive action, leading to one innocent death?

2) What if there is uncertainty?

If you do nothing, thousands of people may die in an expected upcoming, unpopular war.

If you assassinate the PM, whose replacement is opposed to the war, there is expected to be no war.

a) Is the PM/President "innocent?" Was it a lesser evil to kill him? Or was it good?

b) Is it unethical for you not to assassinate the PM, as this is expected to lead to thousands of deaths?

 

3a) Are senior government officials evil for their part in an evil system? Or are they not powerful enough to change to the system meaningfully? (e.g. the Chancellor can't abolish taxes, he may not even be able to cut taxes, but if he keeps them as low as he can, is he minimising evil? Or is he evil simply for being in charge of taxes?)

3b) If they aren't evil (are innocent), is justified to kill them if that lead to a swifter downfall of their form of government, or curtailing some of their more evil actions? (You mentioned anarchists assassinating heads of state in another post - is this justified, or just something you thought might happen?)  

 

4) If you earn a high income, or even any income, and don't refuse to pay tax, are you evil for facilitating evil by paying tax? Or are you not evil, because refusing to pay tax is probably futile? Do people have a duty to oppose the state? If people don't consider the state evil or consider its evils are outweighed by benefits is that justifiable, or are they evil?

 

In the examples you have given (for example, where one robber ties you up, then gets killed by another robber) the evil is quite simple and obvious. This is probably true of most ordinary crimes (thefts, assaults, murder), but much political action is evil responding to other evils without common agreement on what is evil or which evil is greater.

5) Do you think there are some places where the is more evil by crime than evil by government? In those cases are government evils (e.g. tax) justified, at least in the short term? 

 

You didn't really answer this question:

"If the world became anarcho-capitalist tomorrow, would that be enough to prevent evil, or would innocent people who had been aggressed against require restitution?"

(You just said anarchism tomorrow was as likely as speaking Japanese tomorrow. Maybe I should have removed "tomorrow" - "if the world transitioned to anarchy, would that be enough to prevent evil, or would innocent people who had been aggressed against require restitution?")

[Arpeggio]

 

Fake ballot collection points? Quite how on earth that is legal is beyond me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/california-fake-ballot-boxes-republican-gop-2020-election-b1041483.html

I read the article. The picture in the article doesn't appear to be one of them. Why have they not pictured one of the offending boxes?

"Hiltachk said all of the party's drop boxes are indoors either at county party headquarters, churches or retailers that have agreed to participate. He says the boxes are locked and monitored by people.....The fact that it is a box does not make it illegal,” Hiltachk said. “If we have to use a bag, then we'll use a bag.”

Ballot harvesting, is unfortunately legal in California:

"Political parties will collect ballots from supporters and return them to county election offices, a practice known as “ballot harvesting.” Some states have banned this practice, but it's legal in California."

There are some more pictures of the official boxes in these articles about people burning ballot boxes, (maybe why they chose to do the above):

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2020/10/26/man-charged-in-burning-of-ballot-drop-box-in-boston.html

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/20/ballot-drop-box-set-fire-california-100-ballots-damaged/5992101002/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-19/ballot-box-fire-baldwin-park-may-be-arson

Unfortunately Democrat run California is one of the more Laissez-faire states on election procedures. I would abolish vote harvesting.

[Chunketh]

 

I read the article. The picture in the article doesn't appear to be one of them. Why have they not pictured one of the offending boxes?

"Hiltachk said all of the party's drop boxes are indoors either at county party headquarters, churches or retailers that have agreed to participate. He says the boxes are locked and monitored by people.....The fact that it is a box does not make it illegal,” Hiltachk said. “If we have to use a bag, then we'll use a bag.”

Ballot harvesting, is unfortunately legal in California:

"Political parties will collect ballots from supporters and return them to county election offices, a practice known as “ballot harvesting.” Some states have banned this practice, but it's legal in California."

There are some more pictures of the official boxes in these articles about people burning ballot boxes, (maybe why they chose to do the above):

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2020/10/26/man-charged-in-burning-of-ballot-drop-box-in-boston.html

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/20/ballot-drop-box-set-fire-california-100-ballots-damaged/5992101002/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-19/ballot-box-fire-baldwin-park-may-be-arson

Unfortunately Democrat run California is one of the more Laissez-faire states on election procedures. I would abolish vote harvesting.

Agreed. Seems a crackers proposition when mail in works just fine.

[Young Turk]

 

Ballot harvesting, is unfortunately legal in California:

"Political parties will collect ballots from supporters and return them to county election offices, a practice known as “ballot harvesting.” Some states have banned this practice, but it's legal in California."

In 2016, there were 8,753,788 votes for Clinton and 4,483,810 votes for Trump. Do you think Trump would have won in the absence of ballot harvesting?

[Arpeggio]

 

Agreed. Seems a crackers proposition when mail in works just fine.

Mail is OK so long as it is secure. Always been the way for people who can't go in person due to illness or are overseas, but I can't see why to justify it for everyone. If it's OK to riot in person it's OK to vote in person.

Many countries limit vote by mail. https://www.independentsentinel.com/most-countries-of-the-world-ban-mail-in-voting-due-to-fraud-vote-buying/

"In the EU, 85% of countries either bar mail-in ballots for people not living abroad or require a photo ID for such a ballot, according to the report. And every European country that is not a member of the EU has mail-in policies that fall into that category."

There are issues that are indicative. One being the chain of custody is longer with mail. e.g. when you send something really important you use recorded delivery, unless you take it there in person (same issue with voting by mail). There is a block chain remote voting system patented early 2020 but not implemented.

[zugzwang]

 

Unfortunately it looks like Democrats are breaking the law in PA already. I'm pretty sure that campaigning at polling stations is illegal....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/steal-philly-man-caught-handing-democrat-literature-voters-line-vote/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/caught-video-philadelphia-poll-watcher-prevented-entering-polling-place-video/

The Mask Is Off: Kamala Harris Endorses Communism 2 Days Out From Election Day.

Yay! ******** bingo!

Everyone's a Marxist except Donald Trump.

[Arpeggio]

 

In 2016, there were 8,753,788 votes for Clinton and 4,483,810 votes for Trump. Do you think Trump would have won in the absence of ballot harvesting?

That's not a question that can be answered. Ballot harvesting helps whoever uses it.