(03-21-2022 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But it seems that the left is arguing that holding only the tie breaking vote in the Senate and not being able to always convince 100% of your own party to go along is 'a minority effectively blocking a majority's entire legislative agenda'...

Illustrated aptly by the complaints not long ago that "two senators are blocking the will of 48". Just ignore those other 50...their votes are unimportant and may be suppressed and ignored.

The dems position on voting is that any measure designed to add security to voting is a measure meant to prevent black/minority voters from voting. It's as if they think minorities cannot follow the rules.

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

(03-21-2022 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Illustrated aptly by the complaints not long ago that "two senators are blocking the will of 48". Just ignore those other 50...their votes are unimportant and may be suppressed and ignored.

It's actually fifty-two senators blocking the will of 48. As it should be.

Today I am addressing arrangements for my annual trip to Las Vegas for the World Series of Poker. On their website, WSOP.com, I find the following requirements to sign up for an event:

"Guests are required to present valid photo identification, along with their Caesars Rewards card and payment to enter events."

I wonder if Stacey Abrams along with top level Democrats would consider this a way to restrict black poker players from participating in the greatest series of tournaments on this globe?

It is as "reasonable" to think this is racial player suppression as it is to think that requiring that same ID to vote is racial voter suppression.

Tournament poker is the most democratic (small d) expression of capitalism in the world, IMO. Anybody can play, if they are of legal age and present those three items at registration. (The Rewards card is free). Everybody relies on their own judgements, and nobody is given a hand up or down by the powers that be. The profile of the body of poker players does NOT look like America, or even the world, although there will be a plethora of foreign players. Heavily weighted toward white and Asian males, a bit shy on blacks and females, it nevertheless is the result of self selection. Some of the best players in the world come from underrepresented demographics. Phil Ivey, Maurice Hawkins, Maria Ho, e. g.



If Stacey wants to play all she needs is her ID and the appropriate amount of cash.

good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

(04-08-2022 04:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

A much better and worthy article than what you make it out to be.

Some pretty shocking statistics about wealth in politics - not necessarily surprising, but not good. And I’m not sure how one could fix the issue of “perverse incentives” as the author puts it.

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

A much better and worthy article than what you make it out to be.

Some pretty shocking statistics about wealth in politics - not necessarily surprising, but not good. And I’m not sure how one could fix the issue of “perverse incentives” as the author puts it.

The surest way to reduce the role of money in politics is to reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. Lad, you know this. Some of the proposals discussed in our own forum embody this principle.

Alas, reducing the role of politics in ANYTHING — taxes, education, judiciary, you name it — is anathema to so-called “progressives”.

(04-08-2022 08:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

A much better and worthy article than what you make it out to be.

Some pretty shocking statistics about wealth in politics - not necessarily surprising, but not good. And I’m not sure how one could fix the issue of “perverse incentives” as the author puts it.

The surest way to reduce the role of money in politics is to reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. Lad, you know this. Some of the proposals discussed in our own forum embody this principle.

Alas, reducing the role of politics in ANYTHING — taxes, education, judiciary, you name it — is anathema to so-called “progressives”.

I’m wondering if the current bill being proposed to ban Congressmen and their spouses from actively trading stocks will pass.

(04-08-2022 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 08:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

A much better and worthy article than what you make it out to be.

Some pretty shocking statistics about wealth in politics - not necessarily surprising, but not good. And I’m not sure how one could fix the issue of “perverse incentives” as the author puts it.

The surest way to reduce the role of money in politics is to reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. Lad, you know this. Some of the proposals discussed in our own forum embody this principle.

Alas, reducing the role of politics in ANYTHING — taxes, education, judiciary, you name it — is anathema to so-called “progressives”.

I’m wondering if the current bill being proposed to ban Congressmen and their spouses from actively trading stocks will pass.

I am wondering if Pelosi will bring it to the floor.

Trump (and Biden really, though not as clearly) have already demonstrated that this isn't enough. Although I know numerous other tricks used by the wealthy, this only encourages them to go 'deeper' or more 'off the grid' in terms of their investments.

The fact that almost nobody is ever prosecuted on these things yet people earning 200k very quickly become millionaires demonstrates the problem. MAYBE its more about speaking tours and the like while they are in office? Encourage them to 'do things' and then write their books and make their presentations out of office??

(04-08-2022 09:56 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trump (and Biden really, though not as clearly) have already demonstrated that this isn't enough. Although I know numerous other tricks used by the wealthy, this only encourages them to go 'deeper' or more 'off the grid' in terms of their investments.

The fact that almost nobody is ever prosecuted on these things yet people earning 200k very quickly become millionaires demonstrates the problem. MAYBE its more about speaking tours and the like while they are in office? Encourage them to 'do things' and then write their books and make their presentations out of office??

Remember Hillary's 30 minute, 6 figure speeches to Wall Street?

I wonder why they have stopped? Isn't her financial acumen just as good as it was before she lost the election?

(04-08-2022 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 08:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 07:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 04:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  good work if you can get it

Speaking of Stacy…

Looks like she has made millions lying about voter suppression.

A much better and worthy article than what you make it out to be.

Some pretty shocking statistics about wealth in politics - not necessarily surprising, but not good. And I’m not sure how one could fix the issue of “perverse incentives” as the author puts it.

The surest way to reduce the role of money in politics is to reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. Lad, you know this. Some of the proposals discussed in our own forum embody this principle.

Alas, reducing the role of politics in ANYTHING — taxes, education, judiciary, you name it — is anathema to so-called “progressives”.

I’m wondering if the current bill being proposed to ban Congressmen and their spouses from actively trading stocks will pass.

Good question. When was the last time a majority of Congressmen voted against their own financial interests?