Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stay Gold, America

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 239 posts

Re: Stay Gold, America

#131

Post by angoragoats »

gadders wrote: post #50

I don't know how you can want to improve democracy, and be in favour of universal mail-in voting, the most open to abuse form of voting there is.

Even if there were a handful of fraudulent votes occurring with voting by mail (which I have yet to see a shred of evidence for), it allows many more people who can’t afford transportation, who work multiple jobs, or who otherwise can’t get to a polling place to vote, when they otherwise couldn’t. This is especially important in places like the south, where Republican-controlled governments have conducted widespread closures of polling places, especially in areas that historically vote Democratic.

Also, could you please explain, in detail, how voting by mail is “the most open to abuse”?

Re: Stay Gold, America

#132

Post by angoragoats »

gadders wrote: post #113
thrance wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was already investigated "properly"... Republicans states have been going crazy over it since at least 2016. If there was any evidence of it would have been found by now, now it's just another red herring. Agreed on your second paragraph.

I think it is hard for political parties to investigate anything. You would need law enforcement for that. It is also my understanding that most voter fraud challenges in 2016 were dismissed due to lack of standing, before the facts were considered.

No one said anything about political parties doing the investigation.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#133

Post by quintushoratius »

xocnad wrote: post #125
apexalpha wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just the FPTP system? I mean what point is there in voting R in California or so. You'd have to be a dogmatic believer of civic duty to stand in line for hour just to vote R or D in a state that will go the other way with 30% difference...

There is a solution to presidential elections for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters... .

As if presidential elections are the only elections, or even the only ones that matter.

What the prior commenter meant is that in some jurisdictions it's pointless to vote against one of the parties because they win so overwhelmingly.

For example, I live in Massachusetts. The legislature is 95% one party. There's no point in being in another party, you'll never get elected and your vote won't change the outcome. It sounds like a dream if it's "your" party but without inter-party tension there are a lot of shenanigans that go on.

Your municipal and state elections are, by a wide margin, the most consequential to your daily life. Congressional representatives have a moderate importance.

Who is elected president has the least impact to your daily life, and to the laws and politics of the country, of any person you ever vote for. It's actually tiny, even if some people would like you to think it's everything.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#134

Post by jongjong »

jbaber wrote: post #86
jongjong wrote: post #25

>> We must act now to keep the dream alive. Our family made eight $1 million donations to nonprofit groups working to support those most currently in need This kind of thing triggers me. Not because of the humble-bragging but because this is precisely the attitude which makes everything worse. Systemic problems cannot be fixed by bailing out a select few... It's making things worse for everyone else, adding cost pres…

What is his alternative?

Advocating and lobbying for system change such as abolishing reserve banking and other such monetary manipulations.

It's dystopian that some people have millions of dollars of passive income; easy money falling on their lap each year, mostly coming straight out of a money printer, then they give back a fraction of that to a fraction of the people who were victimized by that same system.

The system systematically steals a little bit of money from maybe a few million victims via inflation, taxes and loss of opportunities, the system then essentially gives some of that money to 1 person (e.g. gov contracts, cheap loans, etc... which props up their stocks, without them even being aware), then the person donates a portion of that money to maybe 10 to 100 hand-picked victims. Net result; it just serves to concentrate wealth from a majority of victims to a minority of victims and makes things even harder for the majority of people who aren't recipient of any donations or investments.

It creates a system where nobody can succeed without receiving help. Either the government helps you with their money printer, or some rich person (who is themselves helped by the government or banking system) helps you. It becomes increasingly difficult to succeed without help when everyone else is getting help.

Imagine playing a game of monopoly when half of the players are getting 10x the money than the other half every time they pass go. What happens to the people who are receiving less money? They're essentially guaranteed to lose the game. A miserable experience because it FEELS hopeless and it literally IS hopeless... Yet they're being gaslit that everyone else is on the same playing field. It's not, just look at how the system is designed, new money is being created constantly, clearly it's not being distributed evenly.

The system would be much better if rich people just retired and spent their time and unlimited printed money on their yachts and mansions instead of distorting the markets and monopolizing opportunities by funding all sorts of startups which only steal opportunities from more worthy competitors (who don't have priority access to a money printer).

Re: Stay Gold, America

#135

Post by angoragoats »

arkh wrote: post #71
thrance wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big lie promoted by the republicans who don't like mail-in voting because democrats use it more [1]. There is still absolutely no evidence that any fraud ever happened with that system. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-mail-in-vo...

[flagged]

This is a laughably bad analogy, so bad that I suspect you’re being disingenuous.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#136

Post by piva00 »

dijit wrote: post #45
booleandilemma wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered why our politicians should be so rich. Why are so many of them millionaires? It would be nice to have laws preventing this, somehow. Or maybe force them to donate x% of their wealth to the areas they represent every year, in addition to the standard taxes. Do politicians even pay taxes? :)

I go back and forth on this myself. I'm the first to admit my ignorance of such topics to be completely honest. However, what I've noticed about myself as I've become more wealthy is that I'm less corruptible. I've always had a strong moral backbone, sure, but I've noticed that I am less likely to do things that compromise what I want to do, as I've become more rich. So, maybe you need your politicians to be somewhat…

Getting rich already means you have a higher drive from greed, allowing greedy people in positions of power doesn't mean it makes them less corruptible just that the corruption is on a higher level and degree. Instead of an official taking a bribe on a briefcase full of cash there are layers of indirection, contracts between companies, some kind of trust somewhere that benefits from it, someone gets employed in a position of power like the board of some company, etc.

It's funny because I grew up in a very corrupt country (Brazil), nowadays when I compare the corruption I saw there with developed countries I've lived at the main difference is how brazen and shameless it is in Brazil while in developed places it has more layers to be stuffed into, and veneers attached to it to hide it away.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#137

Post by alkonaut »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #112
alkonaut wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that rhetorical? It's the de-facto choice in most liberal democracies for exactly the reason I mentioned.

Do you have a citation for this, or is it just something you've come to believe?

Come to believe, only. But the arguments for and against are pretty clearly laid out each time there is an election (and of course any other time like https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/...)

(It's far from the only reason states don't use compulsory voting, I should say. There are many reasons both to have compulsory voting, and many arguments against. But the fact I was trying to point to was that the vast majority of countries don't use mandatory voting - because, one must assume, they feel the cons outweigh the pros)

Re: Stay Gold, America

#138

Post by imacomputertoo »

pjc50 wrote: post #98
imacomputertoo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people have been saying the American dream is dead my entire life. I'm tired of hearing it. I'm also tired of people saying the American dream is about becoming a billionaire. It's not. It never has been. It's always been about having the opportunity to improve your wealth and living standards. Sometimes that means just leaving something better for your children, much like the Italian and Irish immigrants did That Am…

> Buying a house is a very expensive and slow way to build wealth. Buying a second house may be questionable, but the first house has so many tax and leverage advantages as well as "hedging" against the volatile rental market. Especially when Americans can get 30 year fixed mortgages! > but they can give their children a better life. it's certainly not easy, but it's possible. The working class, however (not the most…

> Buying a second house...

I hear this so the time from people who have never owned a home. It's partly true, but not as good if a deal as you think. True that you don't have to pay capital gains taxes when you sell, but that's true of 401ks when taking distributions.

As for HELOC loans, well that's more debit in to of your mortgage. You could get that from an SBLOC from your brokerage account, and under some circumstances, from a 401k. Again this is all more debit, and you don't want that unless you are desperate.

Finally, owning a home does not protect you from increasing housing costs. Increasing property values will increase your taxes and insurance every year, just like a rent increase. Maintenance costs will hit you like a hammer. In the end you pa thousands to maintain your home every year. The only reason to buy a house is to capture a small percentage of the over all cost in equity. But it takes about a decade before that saves money over renting.

All these people complaining about not being able to afford a home don't even have savings. First, get a few months of savings, then max out your 401k or open a brokerage account, then consider buying a house if you think you'll live there for a year.

>What is they want to give themselves a better life

That's not always possible. If you immigrate at the age of 50 and you're very poor, it might be too late. Still, many people will simply benefit from living in a more stable nation.

>All tvs are flat screen now

It was true in 2000 and it's true now. maybe I should have said 4k tvs? it makes no difference.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#139

Post by cowsandmilk »

throwpoaster wrote: post #124
coldtea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're orthogonal. You can start and business and get downwards social mobility (lose your personal investment in a bussiness which fails). And inversely, you can get upwards mobility without starting a business (like with a promotion or getting a better job). Or rather, in the last decades, increasingly you can't. But traditionally, that was the way most people saw it. The "company man" going through the ranks, the…

This is only true if you consider absolute instead of expected value and cherry pick statistical outcomes. Successful business people start multiple businesses. Social class and economic class are different. Few successful welders go to the opera.

????? What does any of what you wrote have to do with social mobility statistics? They don’t measure number of businesses or opera attendance when determining movement from bottom quintile of income to top quintile.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#140

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

alkonaut wrote: post #60
Terr_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Not really: Voters can still choose to "not participate" (whether as protest or laziness) simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. If anything, the signal you're talking about becomes stronger , since a compulsory-voting system removes or reduces certain practical impediments which have nothing to do…

> simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. The signals are different. I cast a blank vote to indicate my support for the process/election, but my lack of support for any of the candidates. I cast no vote to indicate my lack of support for the process itself. Non-voters and blank/invalid voters are usually reported separately to give exactly these 2 signals.

I wonder how well a system would work if it had compulsory voting, but there was always a 'none of the above' option on the ballet. If 'none of the above' gets the most votes or above a certain threshold, the current candidates are disqualified and another election is called with new ones.
Post reply on HN