• 6 Posts
  • 205 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle




  • With all due respect, that is some real defeatist dog shit. Yes, Trump and cronies have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. But if we collectively roll over at the first fascist executive order, that’s exactly what they want us to do… They are testing the waters. The supreme court is packed, but every circuit court in the country certainly isn’t. And that’s where these battles are already being fought. We need to collectively resist every encroachment, every power grab. Otherwise we’re nearly as culpable as Trump for the rise of fascism.




  • Not to mention these idiots could live in a state that’s blue but not solidly blue and that state could possibly flip red because they assumed blue was safe in their state.

    That’s why I used the word “solidly.”

    Do you think non-voters and 3rd party presidential voters are smart enough to keep an eye on that kind of thing?

    Some of them? Sure. Maybe not all of them. But it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. I was just making the claim that your math was including some voters that had no possible effect on Trump getting elected. And I still think that’s the case whether or not a number of people in purple states decided not to vote because Harris didn’t really speak to the economic realities they face everyday. Now we’re just quibbling over how wrong your math is.

    To your broader point about the popular vote: I agree that people not voting or voting 3rd party impacts the popular vote, and the popular vote is indeed often used as a proxy for a national mandate. But Trump didn’t even break 50% on the popular vote—hardly a Reagan-style sweeping mandate despite initial reports to the contrary. So in this particular election, your point doesn’t even come into play. You’re calling people idiots for how they voted because of a theoretical outcome that didn’t occur.

    Yes, voting in the U.S. is basically harm reduction. But what’s the point of voting to reduce harm if it doesn’t actually have much chance of doing that in your state? To be clear, I’m not advocating not voting. I’m advocating giving people a little grace if, via their vote, they didn’t materially contribute to the rise of fascism or whatever. In fact, you could say that someone voting third party in a solidly blue state has just as much impact on the election as someone voting blue in a solidly red one. It’s just numbers.












  • Hanauer, founder of Seattle-based public policy incubator Civic Ventures, said that valuing illiquid assets — such as startup equity or artwork — is a “logistical nightmare” and has “failed every place it’s been tried.”

    Here’s one proposed way to do it (not my idea): Ask the owner of the illiquid asset to declare a dollar value for it… with the added stipulation that the State reserves the right to buy the asset at that dollar value. Thereby, the owner is disincentived to declare an artificially low value to avoid taxes.

    This approach is not without problems, but it would tend to result in a more realistic market value for each asset.