Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Karlito]

So a billionaire got a referendum to be placed on the ballot so he and his buddies can break up California into six states and take control.

I don't think new states can be created without an act of Congress.

EDIT: Ah yes, the article mentions that.

[Sheb]

Doesn't Texas get an exception to allow them to split?

[LordSlowpoke]

texas will get rid of dry counties before it splits

[Bauglir]

It raises the interesting question of whether Texas is allowed to mess with Texas, to be sure.

[Karlito]

Doesn't Texas get an exception to allow them to split?

I suspect that if Texas attempted to divide itself into several states based on a shaky legal reading of a 150 year old law, they would find that they do, in fact, need the consent of the US Congress.

[mainiac]

Thanks for the ground breaking revelation that stocks and unleveraged bond portfolios should have the same nominal rate of return without accounting for risk premiums.

Economics is a science, believe it or not and conflating those rates in this particular situation is about misleading as swapping Fahrenheit and Celsius values without conversion.  And then just waving your hands about unspecified cash transfers is just more of the same on the top.

[Strife26]

Doesn't Texas get an exception to allow them to split?

I suspect that if Texas attempted to divide itself into several states based on a shaky legal reading of a 150 year old law, they would find that they do, in fact, need the consent of the US Congress.

Hey, I'm reasonably certain that we'll love to welcome North Texas, South Texas, East Texas, and West Texas to the Union.



_{And I'd totally consider emigrating to Austin as the new smallest State in that case}

[GreatJustice]

Thanks for the ground breaking revelation that stocks and unleveraged bond portfolios should have the same nominal rate of return without accounting for risk premiums.

Economics is a science, believe it or not and conflating those rates in this particular situation is about misleading as swapping Fahrenheit and Celsius values without conversion.  And then just waving your hands about unspecified cash transfers is just more of the same on the top.

The point is that the Federal Reserve isn't making any real profit on those bonds since they're barely keeping up with inflation, and even a first year econ major would know that the Fed isn't buying bonds to make a profit regardless, so you're shifting the topic.

Anyhow, from what I can decipher from your argument (inasmuch as you're making one at all), you seem to think the Fed's bond purchases and current policies don't constitute giving money to the rich because all they do is buy assets at market value, so it isn't really giving them money, just making an honest purchase. Except this argument is circular, because the "market value" of bonds these days is primarily held up by Federal Reserve asset purchases, so the "market value" is realistically whatever the Fed sets it at. Similarly, a hypothetical Fed with no restrictions on purchases could buy donuts at $5 apiece in sufficient volume to drive the price of donuts to that level, and at that point it would be the "market value", but it would be "market value" in a weird, post-Keynesian sense.

[palsch]

So, erm, holy fuck this is a disgusting story.

Smart’s arrest was the result of a massive investigation initiated by a local district attorney whose senior assistant attorney sat on the Brooks County school board. Although this conflict of interest disqualified the DA from trying the case, it didn’t prevent him from compelling the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to launch an exceptionally large probe into the disruptive school-board election.

Yet the massive investigation failed to produce evidence that Smart or any other member of the group had defrauded or coerced a single voter. With these goods lacking, the state built its prosecution instead on proving that she and others breached technicalities like carrying envelopes containing ballots to the mail for their close acquaintances without the proper authorization.

Even on these counts, the state is struggling to make its case. VICE spoke with several Brooks County residents state prosecutors allege are the victims of voter fraud at the hands of the Quitman 10 + 2. Each of them asserted that they had successfully voted for the candidate of their choice without coercion or any impropriety. Similarly, court documents reveal that other alleged victims—called by the prosecution to testify against Smart—had little to offer the state’s case. Under oath, witnesses called by the state asserted that no fraud had taken place and said that, during interrogations, Georgia investigators had them sign personal statements that the agents had written for them.

In 2012, despite the case’s vulnerabilities, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal issued an executive order removing the three black women charged with voter fraud from the school board.

It gets worse.

[Rolepgeek]

Thus, the reason I wish that other countries didn't have quite so strict policies regarding gaining citizenship.

On the other hand, they've probably managed to keep out all the people who do crap like the above that way.

[Loud Whispers]

I generally think 'Revolt in America's stupid', because the only reason some people have to revolt is 'Them there Muslims Mexicans are getting into our country!'
Sometimes, however...

Muslims is yurop, Mexicans is America (and usually catholic). I would also say the Americans have far more to be pissed off from and are rightfully so when their media isn't saturated with the inane and the misinformed. There are more to people than strawmen greatorder, even if everything is Obama's fault.

So a billionaire got a referendum to be placed on the ballot so he and his buddies can break up California into six states and take control.

I don't think new states can be created without an act of Congress.
EDIT: Ah yes, the article mentions that.

Split California up and everyone's happy. The farmers get their own bit, the techies get their own bit, everyone gets to try and build a giant wall around Los Angeles before it rises from the ground and begins fighting New York for resources.


In other Cali news a worker was sucked into a fracked up hole full of hot steam and oil in 2011 in which he was cooked to death and there was an apparent coverup because suspicious shit happened.

[Rolepgeek]

See, the problem I had with the way they're trying to split California up is that it looks like they're just trying to leverage Conservative power. If you look at the way each new 'state' would be split, all the conservative ones are only just mostly conservative, perhaps 60%, while the liberal ones are more like 90%, if not more. It's trying to utilize the elections work to game the system.

After all, if you have 3 states that are 60% conservative, 40% liberal, but it's an all or nothing, that's 3 conservative states. While the other 3 states are 90% liberal, that's 3 liberal states. (and then there's that whole thing inside of the counties themselves too *sigh*). Meaning it looks like a tie when really it's mostly liberal; 210 out of 600 is conservative, the other 390 is liberal(or other, I suppose). Yet they try to finagle it so it looks like a tie, and thus gives more power to conservative party in a manner not resembling the actual climate of the demographics.

[Loud Whispers]

LW, it's just that damn near everyone has had some plans for revolt based on some moronic reason. Some are genuinely good reasons, but I've seen a lot more 'That black president isn't American!' or 'The gays are being accepted!' or 'Them immigrants!' and such than the ones with reasonable reasons.

Sure, I don't doubt it, America has a great capacity for stupidity. But like the hippies, they are always looking for reasons to antagonize the government for and sometimes they're right.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh, but I did, I just saw you place undue emphasis on the fearmonger talking points.

[mainiac]

Thanks for the ground breaking revelation that stocks and unleveraged bond portfolios should have the same nominal rate of return without accounting for risk premiums.

Economics is a science, believe it or not and conflating those rates in this particular situation is about misleading as swapping Fahrenheit and Celsius values without conversion.  And then just waving your hands about unspecified cash transfers is just more of the same on the top.  But what are prices when you remove the prices from their evaluation.  Quite the koan.

The point is that the Federal Reserve isn't making any real profit on those bonds since they're barely keeping up with inflation, and even a first year econ major would know that the Fed isn't buying bonds to make a profit regardless, so you're shifting the topic.

Anyhow, from what I can decipher from your argument (inasmuch as you're making one at all), you seem to think the Fed's bond purchases and current policies don't constitute giving money to the rich because all they do is buy assets at market value, so it isn't really giving them money, just making an honest purchase. Except this argument is circular, because the "market value" of bonds these days is primarily held up by Federal Reserve asset purchases, so the "market value" is realistically whatever the Fed sets it at. Similarly, a hypothetical Fed with no restrictions on purchases could buy donuts at $5 apiece in sufficient volume to drive the price of donuts to that level, and at that point it would be the "market value", but it would be "market value" in a weird, post-Keynesian sense.

I you dont want me "changing the subject" by correcting your factual inaccuracies, stop repeating them.

That's a fun argument that market prices are meaningless if affected by participants.  I didn't know you dabbled in philosophy.  I just wade in the shallow end of political philosophy myself.