impartialobserver

I do not think that the scenarios outlined by you are realistic. I think that you are too biased and too partisan to say anything of value. A republican could say that 3^3 = 27 and you would object.

not voting for ukraine funding does not mean that they support Putin. Maybe.. just maybe it is a sign that we want to stop spending money on someone else's battle. There is no explicit proof that Republicans are in cahoots with Putin. However, when it comes to Russia, they are simply confounding. Not really sure what they gain by having this protracted war other than pride and some new territory added to their map.

You can rely on predictions and I will base my decisions on what is. Problem solved.

I just wonder what would happen if you acted like an adult and did not respond if you did not care for the post... I know why you respond... interesting how when i point out that you rely on assumptions.. you never respond. Hmm.. that tells me that you do and just do not care for the fact that I can point it out.

however, no politician that can win could have this on his platform. We live in a short term thinking kind of world and this (above) is long term thinking. Lower budgets could (i know unrealistic and no I have not had a beer yet) lead to less taxation. Less taxation would mean more income and less complexity.

And there we go with more assumptions.. you think that I am in agreement. I simply observe and collect data, so to speak. Honestly do not agree with most of them. What would you do if you could not rely on assumptions? I am not sure I want to know the answer...

I already did... I stated that that the "democrats" that I know have variance in their views and hence not cult-like. If you do not like that... you could be grown up and keep scrolling... really

off topic ^^^ as always. You can never address my points directly. I know your types.

voting because someone has a chance is to win.. is a terrible way to go about it. If I was in control.. my first mandate would be to have every cabinet department trim its budget by 2% every year. If they can't do it... then someone else will do it for them and the cuts will be 4% or greater. Seconds, use it or lose it grant funding would cease. Finally, long term contracts would get re-examined. If you find out in year 2 of 10 that it is not working.. you should not have to continue paying in years 3 to 10.

I made a point (not in response to you.. easily proven), you responded and every time you respond.. you go off into the weeds. Pretty simple stuff honestly. why you respond is both amusing and pathetic.

Another example of your passion/zealousness getting in the way of you saying something true. I have never stated a pro-vax statement. I have said dozens of times that I did not care... "did not care" is not the same as "vaccinations are/were good"... You must have some dyslexia. Also, my comment is on how they vary in their views.. not riots. Even Chatgpt can see those two are not the same. As always, its a good thing that you are not in my office. Your irrational passion would preclude from even getting close to doing the job correctly. We are paid to get it right not be right.. How many initial claims are there in a given month is not the same as many initial claims should there be.. but you demonstrate that you could not separate the two.

I simply vote third party on most occasions. I am realistic and honest enough to know that it has no real impact on the outcome however it satisfies my conscience.

Hence why I do not support either party. If either truly wanted to decrease govt spending.. I would be on board but neither does.

the list is too long to even start. No politician is really serious about cutting spending. None that get elected anyways. The ones (on both sides) that really want this.. lose in the primaries or are so outnumbered as to make their ideas pointless.

Where I differ from everybody else... is that I know intimately that politicians on both sides use it and have no intentions on quitting. It makes them into heroes with their supporters. My heart with would be doing the right thing not having people worship at my fake altar.

There are reasons that the government credit card keeps being used. No one is ready for the cold, hard, unpleasant truth. Especially the politicians who use it and would see their careers die if they quit using it.

Again.. I have stated three times now that those liberals/democrats who I have met and interacted with exhibit consider variance in their view. I am not sure how you can't comprehend this. You paint everyone with the same paintbrush. I know it is easy and keeps it from getting complex. I could say that all UI claimants are braindead because the few that find their way to me are generally lacking brain power.. ie, spelling their own name incorrectly or thinking that I can add zeros to their benefit amount because we are "bros" or such. But most are not braindead and can follow simple instructions.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Again, I am talking about the individuals/voters not the elected officials. I know that you can't separate the two. I am not sure how much more clear I can be... If I am in a cult.. I am the most detached member of the cult ever considering that I do not attend rallies and never have, do not follow stuff on Facebook, and have a general loathing of all politics. But its your story so do not let me distract you.

Well.. my experience with leftist/liberal voters/individuals differs from yours. I see quite a bit of variance and always have. Yes, they vote for Democrats mostly.. duh moment. Just like conservatives vote for Republicans even when their views do not exactly sync up on a 1 to 1 basis. If the voters were a cult.. there would be tangible consequences. Someone typing insults on a keyboard and you reading it.. is not a tangible consequence.

When I see the word, "democrats" in this context.. i think of all democrat voters or liberals not just the elected officials. Of course, elected officials have need to band together. Their legislation only passes if the group is on the same page and they get enough votes. As for the individuals out in society, my experience is that there is quite a bit of variance in their views. Secondly, if one individual (not elected official) differs from the group, there is no tangible consequence. Yeah.. so someone on Facebook disagrees with you. Anyone who actually reads the comments shows their distinct lack of IQ.

Some of this is that he had a benefactor, Friedrich Engels, who supported him financially and was trying to use his economic theory as the backbone for his political views. Marx was more of a philosopher than someone who cared deeply about politics. In economics, you generally have 3 factors of production; land, labor, and capital. None are fixed in value. The relative contribution of each is always in flux if you view chronologically. Marx held that land and capital would stay constant and that labor would increase in value because as it was the most vital and important. If technology had stayed the same.. well then he is correct. However, technology took off and he vastly underestimated the amount of available land that was not yet being used in production.

polls are like mock drafts.. predictions made months before the event. Most are fairly close because we know past history and in the case of a draft.. we know what teams like to do and what they need in order to succeed. However, just because one uses rationality to predict the outcome.. that does not mean that the participants (voters or NFL Teams) will act rationally. Denver Broncos moving up to draft Tim Tebow in the first round of the 2010 nfl draft.. no one saw that coming.

And in Das Kapital.. he explains why this is going to happen. He viewed his work as scientific and not political. The reason that the working class or proletariat would rise up is that their contributory portion to the output. labor, would continually increase in value in comparison to that of land or capital (simple machines). He completely missed the boat in that technology would not stay constant and therefore invalidate his labor theory of value.

The reason that I have held firm that Trump wins regardless of breakdown by state is that Biden has been fairly unremarkable and that close losses can lead to close wins. In the past one.. A lot of Trump's losses were fairly narrow. Fairly realistic that the outcome can flip.